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 16:29:44 -0400
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
CC: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D0209E24868@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
On Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:57 PM Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach Levantovsky, Vladimir:
>  >  "SHOULD" has a meaning of formal recommendation but gives the UA
>  >  developers the rights to decide if and how to implement this. The
>  >  meaning is the same, but expressed using the common spec language
>  >  according to RFC 2119. I’d rather stick with the common spec
>  >  language.
> If so, "MAY" is also an option.

The purpose of this sentence is to provide specify recommended behavior, "MAY" has a completely different meaning. 

We all seem to agree that the primary purpose of metadata is to enable font developers to publicize their work and to make font information readily accessible to users. We also seem to agree that it is desirable for browsers to be able to parse and display the metadata, and, as Christopher pointed out, the ability to present metadata content to an end user was one of the major factor for font foundries to support WOFF. It seem logical that we, as experts in the field should make the language of the specification as clear and unambiguous as possible, and provide guidance and recommendations for implementers, instead of merely listing available options.


Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 20:29:04 UTC

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