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: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 09:57:03 -0400
To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.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: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D03F1F12328@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 6:59 AM Tal Leming wrote:
> I've given this a proposal a lot of thought and played out it out
> across different scenarios. On the one hand, it allows for extensions.
> That is good in light of the > 1.0 issues that were discussed. On the
> other hand, it doesn't allow for localization. The existing metadata
> elements do allow for localization where appropriate, so I think that
> the extension block should as well. It also doesn't follow the same
> pattern as the existing metadata, which seems odd to me. I think these
> problems can be solved. Below is a rough draft of an idea that I think
> retains the strengths of the proposal and addresses the problems.
<snip />

Thank you for your efforts to develop a common extension format. I agree that localization capabilities are important and your proposal addresses them within the scope of the original idea of enabling simple extensions mechanism.

> Granted, this is verbose. It could be simplified into something more
> like this:
> 	<extensions>
> 		<group>
> 			<name lang="tag">string</name>
> 			<item>
> 				<name lang="tag">string</name>
> 				<value lang="tag">string</value>
> 			</item>
> 		</group>
> 	</extensions>
> However, that would break the similarities with the top-level
> structures. This could make things confusing. For example, in working
> thorough this, Jonathan, Erik and I noted that the WOFF metadata spec
> should probably say more about localization fallbacks in the top-level
> structure. If the extension structure is the same, we can have one
> global set of localization notes. If the extension structure is
> different, we have to break things apart. Clarity seems better than
> saving some lines of XML.

Considering that XML will always be compressed, having few hundred bytes used for some extra lines of XML shouldn't be a problem. Clarity of the spec and consistency between top-level and extension structures are important indeed.

> Liam also brought up the idea of two separate blocks: one that UAs
> would show and one that UAs would not show. I'm curious to know what
> others think of this.

I thought we agreed that any arbitrary XML (not defined in the WOFF spec) could be added to the metadata with the caveat that it won't be visible to a user via UI provided by browsers. We should explicitly mention this in the spec but I am not sure (meaning I simply don't know) if there is something else we need to do about it. Let's discuss it during the call.

Thank you and regards,
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 14:01:49 UTC

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