Re: WOFF and extended metadata

David Berlow wrote:

 > Sylvain> I'm perfectly fine with having metadata. I think everyone is.
 > 
 > I know John Daggett agrees with you, but if it came from Tab Atkins,
 > Adam Langley and Håkon Wium Lie as well, it could really mean a lot of
 > progress for developers, authors and users.

I'm perfectly fine having metadata as well, hopefully it will be
useful or interesting enough so that UAs will benefit from doing
something with it. But what that "something" is shouldn't be part of
the spec, and UAs must be free to ignore metadata at will.

Robert O'Callahan wrote:

 > To repeat myself: if you can't persuade browser vendors to provide
 > such UI on its own merits, trying to coerce them by legislating UI
 > through the WOFF spec is futile. They'll ignore it and the
 > credibility of the WOFF spec will be damaged. Please don't do this.

+1

Vladimir Levantovsky wrote:

 > I would really like us to explore the possibility of making a
 > stronger position about the UA support for extended metadata. I
 > understand that there will always be use cases when mandatory
 > support for it would not be practical (mobile browsers, printers,
 > document processors (e.g. Prince), but the fact on the grounds is
 > exactly as Sylvain put it - 'all' (i.e. at least all PC versions)
 > UAs would have to do this to reap the full rewards - for font
 > vendors, for web authors and for end users.

I believe there are more mobile browsers than desktop browsers these
days. Burdening PC browsers with mandatory metadata requirements seems
unfair to them.

Cheers,

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome

Received on Saturday, 22 May 2010 15:20:48 UTC