W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2010

RE: WOFF and extended metadata

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 10:17:52 -0400
To: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D0209C2DCBE@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
On Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:26 AM Adam Langley wrote:
> If it helps settle the question then I can state that Chrome, for one,
> will never try to drag an XML parser into the font rendering pipeline
> just to validate metadata; irrespective of the spec.
> Nor will we accept patches to do so.

It would help greatly to clarify things if you tell us where you see a connection between XML metadata and font rendering pipeline. For example, JPEG file format includes EXIF metadata - most image viewers allow you to see it via properties / image info dialog but it has nothing to do with JPEG decoder that processes image data.

Similar, font data encoded in WOFF and XML-formatted metadata are two separate and completely independent blocks of data. Unpacked font data goes into the font rendering pipeline while metadata remains to be a part of the WOFF file. If UA provided a dialog displaying font info encoded in metadata, how could it possibly affect font rendering pipeline?

Thank you,

Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 14:17:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:34 UTC