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

RE: WOFF and extended metadata

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:21:38 +0000
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>, "Tal Leming" <tal@typesupply.com>
CC: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.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: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E21494BDA@TK5EX14MBXC120.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To be clearer on what I proposed from a spec standpoint: 
1. When a user agent renders the metadata block for the user, it SHOULD attempt to render 
all the data elements specified in the format we define.
2. If a user agent finds XML that is not defined in the spec, it MAY ignore it.

These two requirements remain the same whether we agree on specifying an extension area,
or whether we prefer allowing arbitrary XML extension in the metadata block.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-font-request@w3.org [mailto:www-font-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 8:03 AM
> To: Sylvain Galineau; Tal Leming
> Cc: Jonathan Kew; Christopher Slye; www-font@w3.org; public-webfonts-
> wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WOFF and extended metadata
> I would like to make few points:
> 1) I think it is 100% certain that at one time or another someone will
> have a need to extend the existing metadata with additional information
> that is not covered by the schema defined in the spec. Arbitrary XML
> extensions could be used for this purpose but there would be no
> guarantee that this extended data is ever visible. Because of this, we
> may find ourselves in a position where a spec needs to be revised to
> accommodate the metadata XML extensions. Thus, providing an easy to use
> extensible structure that can accommodate arbitrary information *and*
> would insure that this additional information is displayed to an end
> user reliably is a huge benefit.
> 2) We seem to agree that changes in metadata structure may simplify
> future UI implementation to display the metadata content, and that now
> is the only time making such changes would be feasible. I particularly
> like the approach Sylvain proposed because it achieves both the
> compatibility with existing XML metadata structure and provides an easy
> to use extension mechanism.
> 3) I also like the fact that this proposed extension mechanism can
> accommodate any number of "odd" metadata items that may be useful for
> one particular locale or country but not the other - something that we
> would never be able to predict with any certainty, and something that
> may never be *universally useful* for "official" future spec XML
> extension.
> 4) The use of arbitrary XML extensions remains a possibility for font
> vendors, with the clear understanding that existing UI solutions will
> not be able to display this arbitrary info. Thus, there will always be
> a choice of tools to use (extensible key/value pair mechanism and/or
> arbitrary XML extension) to differentiate public extended information
> vs. proprietary (in a sense that it is cannot be guaranteed to ever be
> visible).
> I really like Sylvain's proposal and would support changing the
> existing extended metadata block description to accommodate it.
> Thank you and regards,
> Vlad
Received on Thursday, 27 May 2010 15:22:18 UTC

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