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: Mon, 24 May 2010 08:59:33 -0400
To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>, Adam Langley <agl@google.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: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D0209C2E129@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
On Friday, May 21, 2010 8:03 AM 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.

Persuasion is exactly what I am doing here. We established WebFonts WG that unites all major browser vendors, font vendors and web authors, and our goal is to come up with the technology that satisfies all parties involved. The WG gives us all an opportunity to clarify misconceptions and false assumptions, and to move things forward to a mutually agreed solution. The best way to get there is through the open discussion.

> The spec should stick to issues that affect interoperability, such 
> as the syntax and semantics of the metadata.

I agree with you but in addition to interoperability between tools we also need to consider the interoperability between the authors, font vendors and web users, where the browser acts simply as the enabler. Browsers do not question whether a content produced by authors should or should not be shown to an end user, they simply show it if and when the user wants to see it - I click on the URL, browser shows me the page.

We have a similar situation here: WOFF file may contain a metadata that user wants to see, the only missing component is the URL to click on. This is exactly where I see the spec should fill the void, and paraphrasing your statement above, the spec should stick to defining the issues that affect interoperability, such as the syntax and semantics of the metadata, and the behavior of a browser when a metadata is present. Not specifying a behavior creates an interoperability problem.


Received on Monday, 24 May 2010 13:00:11 UTC

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