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 18:24:12 +0000
To: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
CC: "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E214B4C5D@TK5EX14MBXC113.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> From: public-webfonts-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-webfonts-wg-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hudson
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 11:16 AM

> Doesn't this imply that for every language a complete and parallel set
> of entries is needed? In practice, it is likely that only some of the
> metadata will be localised, so this arrangement may result in a lot of
> redundancy.

Nearly every element in the current format can be localized. The current
design assumes this will be true for extensions as well. If so, the only
repeated part is the markup. Repeated text compresses very well.

> I agree with Sergey that it makes more sense to group the localised
> variant strings according to content, as Tal proposes, rather than
> group them by language.

Which makes more sense really depends on who you are and your goals.
I'm fine with keep localization orthogonal to the format itself i.e.

....Here is metadata in French, and here is the same in English, and here
is the same in Chinese. My user wants French so let me render that.

As opposed to: 
...Here is metadata in 20 languages, now let's process the whole thing
so we can know which 95% to ignore for our French user.
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 18:24:54 UTC

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