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: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 16:14:46 +0000
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
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: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E214B3894@TK5EX14MBXC113.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: Håkon Wium Lie [mailto:howcome@opera.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 8:17 AM
> Yes. There's much repetition. How about:
> 
> <ext lang=en>
> EU Greeting:
> Message: Hello!
> Date: 2010-06-01
> </ext>
> 
> <ext lang=nl>
> EU Groet
> Bericht: Hallo!
> Datum: 2010-06-01
> </ext>
> 
> <ext lang=fr>
> EU Salut
> Message: Bonjour!
> Date: 2010-06-01
> </ext>
> 
> This is the minimalist in me talking, I can probably live with more
> structure, but my experience is that schemas with much structure tend
> to be less understood and, consequently, less used.
> 

I wonder if anyone from Microsoft ever +1'ed Hakon. So here is the 
historical moment:

+1 !

Also, deep schemas with repetition are much more prone to ambiguity.

For instance, if I find this:

	<item>
 			<name>
 				<text lang="en">Message</text>
			</name>
 			<value>
				<text lang="fr">Bonjour!</text>
			</value>
	</item>

...something is clearly wrong to the human reader but code can't tell
and needs rules.

However, is this wrong ?

	<item>
 			<name>
 				<text lang="en">Contributor</text>
			</name>
 			<value>
				<text lang="jp">...<hiragana name>...</text>
			</value>
	</item>
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 16:15:26 UTC

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