- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:53:03 +0100
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-font@w3.org
On Feb 8, 2011, at 15:58, Chris Lilley wrote: > On Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 4:16:26 PM, Bert wrote: > > BB> 3) Section 7 Private date block: Why is the padding at the end a > BB> "should"? I could understand "must" (something you can test), or > BB> "may" (just ignore it). But if you are going to ignore the padding > BB> anyway, why should generators try hard to not write it? Ditto for the > BB> padding of the extended metadata block. > > BB> It is also ironic that the specification accuses the OpenType spec of > BB> not being clear about the padding of the final table, and then itself > BB> allows that padding to vary. (Sure, WOFF is not _unclear_, but the > BB> effect is the same. Imagine that some future Meta-WOFF wants to > BB> encode WOFF: it will have the same problems as WOFF in ensuring > BB> roundtrip encoding...) > > BB> Which means that a "must" seems the best choice. Whether it is "must > BB> be omitted" or "must be included" is less important, although doing > BB> the same for all blocks, whether the last or not, seems easiest. > > We agree and have decided that "must be omitted" makes most sense. Thus, the end of the private data block (if present) coincides with the end of the file. > > Please let us know if this change responds to your comment. (your other comments will be the subject of separate mails, for tracking). (Sorry for the delay, I had sorted these messages into the wrong mailbox.) The resolution looks fine. > > Tracker, this relates to > ACTION-70 > Replace last sentence of section 7: End of Private Data block must correspond with the end of the last file Bert -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 25 March 2011 21:53:32 UTC