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

RE: WOFF and extended metadata

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 03:28:08 +0000
To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
CC: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>, "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: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2148F2B8@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan

>>On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Adam Langley <agl@google.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>>> Lobby UAs to do that. For open-source UAs, contribute patches to do that.
>>> That's really all you can do. Trying to legislate it through spec text is
>>> going to be painful, clumsy and ineffective.
>>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.
>Nor would we in Firefox.

>We might, however, accept patches to expose font metadata through scriptable APIs, and patches to display that data in tools like Firebug or even the Page Info feature
>in Firefox.


In case that was unclear, I am extremely uncomfortable with implementing such a requirement in IE as well. As of today, I would recommend 
we deviate from the spec if it required licensing data to parsed and validated even when the user does not ask for it.
Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 03:28:50 UTC

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