- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:28:21 +0100
- To: Eric Muller <emuller@adobe.com>
- CC: Tal Leming <tal@typesupply.com>, Christopher Slye <cslye@adobe.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>, "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org Group" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, November 24, 2010, 10:24:06 PM, Eric wrote: EM> On 11/24/2010 12:43 PM, Tal Leming wrote: >> Would adding these requirements [namespace] make existing files invalid? EM> Wrt. the current schema, yes. >>>> 2.1 On the localizability side, I would have expected that an element like<description> would allow multiple<text> elements, each with different lang attributes. >> This is already in the spec. EM> The schema says: EM> <optional> EM> <element name="description"> EM> <ref name="text"/> EM> </element> EM> </optional> EM> i.e. a single description. The proposal is to allow multiple EM> descriptions, for different locales. Oh! My bad. The RNG I wrote does not match the spec here. I will fix this. >>>> 5. Licenses are not just translations of a text in different languages, they are also adaptations to local laws. I think this implies that the url and id attributes should instead be on the various<text> elements inside<license>. >> Hm. The URL that the license element is directing the user to could handle this, no? EM> Since there is currently a single license URL, it would means that this EM> URL would have to cover all the locales (the URL may use a scheme that EM> does not have a machinery for locales). The proposal is to allow per EM> locale URLs. Yes, I agree that would be valuable. -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 21:30:09 UTC