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

RE: WOFF and extended metadata

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 11:45:34 -0400
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Laurence Penney <lorp@lorp.org>
CC: "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D03F3BF2782@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
On Sunday, June 20, 2010 6:01 AM Chris Lilley wrote:
> Human-readable strings should be element content, not attributes; this
> is because in some languages they may require markup for things like
> Ruby (in Japanese and Chinese) or bidirectional overrides (in Hebrew
> and Arabic).

While I understand and agree with your position that human readable content would be better off presented as elements, I can also see the validity of Sylvain's original comment that use of simple strings as attributes in WOFF file metadata may be sufficient, and any additional information that would require complex markup can be presented as a standalone html page linked from the metadata content.

> Obfuscated xml stuffed into attributes means that xml tools such as
> xslt cannot get at it. I note that one obvious implementation path for
> a 'font properties' metadata-displayer would be xslt.

Excellent point, which brings the following questions I'd like the WG to consider: 
1) should we consider extending the WOFF spec to provide the XSL style sheet for WOFF metadata as an informative annex? (and)
2) can we also consider asking W3C to host the XSL file so that any WOFF metadata can simply reference this stylesheet? Would it simplify the adoption of WOFF metadata display capabilities?

Thank you,
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 15:49:17 UTC

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