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

Re: WOFF and extended metadata

From: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:49:04 -0400
Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, 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: <FDA8C620-7B51-459A-A090-893554D42773@typesupply.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>

On May 24, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

> My personal preference would be to forgo XML here and use a flat property bag/name-value
> pair format no more complex than JSON. We'd define a basic set of common property names
> e.g. font name, authors, copyright, version, vendor URL etc. and let font makers add whatever 
> else they wish. It will be far easier to create, edit and extend; and browser vendors will be 
> able to provide a generic UI control to show all the properties. 
> 
> It could be that I missed the reason to use XML e.g. maybe we want to nest things hierarchically.
> Since Firefox is the first implementation out there, I'm curious to hear about what they have done
> in this respect, or what their plans are ?

We explored other formats, but we kept coming back to XML for its extensibility. The nesting came out of the need for enabling localization, among other things.

Tal
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 15:49:55 UTC

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