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: Tue, 25 May 2010 15:14:51 -0400
To: Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D0209E24810@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
Strictly speaking, the proposed sentence defines recommended behavior, where some kind of UI is to be provided by UA to show the content of metadata. It does not however prescribe any particular way to implement that UI, nor does it define any specific user interface features. This is all left to the implementers to decide.

Without this sentence, the spec would be incomplete because it provides the description of syntax and semantics of metadata but fails to mention what it is expected to be used for, and whether UA is expected to act on it. The proposed sentence resolves this issue by providing clear recommendations that UA should only display the content based on user's request. 

Regards,
Vlad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webfonts-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Slye
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 2:33 PM
> To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
> Cc: www-font@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WOFF and extended metadata
> 
> Sorry Vlad, I agree it sounds like a UI requirement. Can you imagine a
> solution that satisfies this recommendation that's not? I can't.
> 
> However, I am strongly in favor of some language which specifically
> addresses this subject (the exposure of metadata to the viewer), so I
> do support the inclusion of this particular sentence.
> 
> -C
> 
> 
> On May 25, 2010, at 11:12 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> 
> > "If the metadata is present, browsers SHOULD provide the means for
> the Extended Metadata content to be displayed at user's request."
> >
> > That is a UI requirement.
> >
> > However, phrased that was as a SHOULD, everyone can just ignore it,
> so I guess it's mostly harmless.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 19:14:07 UTC

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