W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: WOFF and extended metadata

From: John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 09:47:11 -0700
Message-ID: <4C0FC58F.7090405@tiro.com>
To: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>
CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>, www-font@w3.org, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>, David Berlow <dberlow@fontbureau.com>
Tal wrote:

> Regarding the extension block: I haven't defended its existence because it wasn't my invention. All I did was try to bring it in line with the rest of the spec. I can't give you specific examples of what the extension block will be used for, but I can come up with some hypothetical examples off the top of my head:
> - Legal statements required in the future that are not of the license, copyright, trademark variety.
> - Parametric font description data.
> - Client specific data.
> - The EPAR/EEULAA info that has been kicked around for years.

Yes, that's along the lines I would anticipate.

There's a reasonable debate to be had about whether EPAR data belongs at 
the WOFF container level, the font data level, or both, but if you're 
looking for a use case for the extension metadata I think one could 
start with looking at David's EPAR draft (link?) and determining how 
that data could be represented within extended WOFF metadata. It's a 
good case of what font makers might want to include.

Regarding localisation, I believe that licensing, trademark and other 
legal strings are most likely to be localised. Will all or even most 
fonts contain localised strings? Probably not. Most OT fonts don't 
either, but some do. We produce fonts for a clients in countries where 
English is not the first language, for local scripts and languages, and 
being able to localise data in those languages is a welcome option to be 
able to present to clients.

Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2010 16:47:49 UTC

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