- From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:33:31 -0700
- To: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>
- CC: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, Adam Langley <agl@google.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, John Daggett <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, www-font@w3.org, public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Jonathan Kew wrote: > Just as image viewers can reasonably be expected to display a JPEG even if the EXIF data is junk - provided the file is structurally sound so that the actual image data can be interpreted - so also UAs should proceed to render fonts even if the metadata is junk, provided the file is structurally sound. I think that is reasonable, so long as the metadata is simply ignored. What I would like to avoid is any situation in which the UA strips the metadata. Generally, I think we need to strongly word the well-formed XML requirement in terms of tool conformance, and only require of the UA that it either ignores the metadata completely or makes it visible to user in some way if desired. If the metadata is malformed and can't be parsed to display to the user, then it is ignored, with an error message at the UA's discretion. JH PS. On the road for the next few days, so won't be responding promptly to replies.
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 16:34:20 UTC