RE: WOFF and extended metadata from Sylvain Galineau on 2010-05-21 (www-font@w3.org from April to June 2010)

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 20:35:15 +0000
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
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: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2148FA78@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.>

> From: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> [mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com]


 
> The fact that license info URL may be one of the elements of extended
> metadata doesn’t change this - this is the information that we want
> user to be able to see, UA has no need to act on it (and nobody ever
> asked for it).

Point taken, and my bad for implying this was only licensing info. My position,
however, remains as stated. I am extremely uncomfortable with a requirement
to reject an otherwise working font because someone screwed up the XML describing
it. No one expects software to completely fail because the 'About' screen has
 a bug in it. And I'm quite confident it does not benefit users.

Received on Friday, 21 May 2010 20:36:01 UTC