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: Thu, 27 May 2010 15:04:33 -0400
Cc: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@googlemail.com>, Vladimir Levantovsky <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.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: <21E47530-98FD-4E8A-B18D-F6A9446C9B45@typesupply.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>

On May 27, 2010, at 1:54 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:

> I'm not sure what you're saying.

Honestly, I'm having a hard time following you as well.

> My proposal defines everything that a
> browser will render, including an extension point allowing font vendors
> to add their own data to the font info UI. Once I have written rendering
> code for such a format, I *am* done. The metadata we have already defined 
> will render. The  conforming metadata you and others add will render too. 
> All of it. It will work the same in 10 years as it would next week.

Okay, so your code would support this abstraction:

	<element attribute="text" />
	<element attribute="text">
		<childelement attribute="text">

This would allow you to support future additions to the spec because you are supporting a structure, not a set of defined elements, right? What if a future version of the spec adds this element?


Given some of what you said before about nesting, I don't know.

> What do I do if people don't conform
> to these guidelines ? Does it mean I'd effectively parse this unknown data then 
> check its tree depth and other structural constraints in order to figure out whether 
> it'll fit in my UI ? Then what if it doesn't ? Up to me ?

All of this applies to your proposal as well. We have to answer these questions no matter what direction we go in.

Received on Thursday, 27 May 2010 19:05:13 UTC

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