- From: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 21:47:37 -0400
- To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 8, 2010, at 6:29 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > As you told me earlier that you received no particular feedback > on the metadata block That is not what I said. I said that we didn't receive feedback from you despite several requests. We were quite active in discussing the metadata block with foundries, designers and others. The general consensus was, "It has everything that we need right now." There have been other discussions since this Working Group started. I have personally run the spec by more foundries in recent weeks. I haven't had anyone tell me that something seemed unnecessary or that something was missing. > To conclude: if this metadata format *has* been used and/or 'hand-tested' > Against actual products then it would be great to see the results. Foundries have released fonts in WOFF format. As many fonts as exist as OTF? No. More than zero? Yes. I don't have an exact count, nor do I have any examples to turn over to you for inspection. Frankly, I don't really understand what you are trying to get at. Your arguments have been all over the place: the metadata shouldn't be XML -> XML is fine -> the format is impossible to parse -> the format is fine -> the format needs an extension block -> the extension block makes things too complicated. Now we're at "maybe we should ignore the thing that the foundries said that they wanted for awhile to see if they want it." Tal
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 01:48:13 UTC