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 18:41:54 +0000
To: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>
CC: HÃ¥kon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.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: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E214B4CA7@TK5EX14MBXC113.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> From: Jonathan Kew [mailto:jonathan@jfkew.plus.com]


> No, <name> and <value> are paired by virtue of being children of the
> same <item>.


Check. So we get to apply language matching/fallback rules on both
sides of the name-value pair in order to produce the pair that best
matches the current user's preferences. This is definitely the bit I 
missed. It's certainly very flexible but a level of processing complexity 
I frankly wasn't expecting here. Achieving consistency across UAs and 
tools processing this data will require more work, spec prose, conformance 
criteria and possibly test cases than I had ever anticipated for file 
metadata. 

I strongly feel we're trying to anticipate too much because we in fact
know so little.

As I told Tal in a separate exchange, I am starting to wonder if your
generic XML rendering proposal may not be the better option today for 
the entire block. Until such time font vendors agree on a common metadata
format *they* are all comfortable with based on market practice.

Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 18:42:45 UTC

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