W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: I18N-ISSUE-6: Localization mechanism too restricted [WOFF]

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:38:18 +0100
Message-ID: <4E1DADDA.1020401@w3.org>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
CC: www-font@w3.org, public-i18n-core@w3.org

Thank you for considering these proposals.

The i18n WG will be happy with option 3 if it can expect option 2 for 
the next version.

For the i18n WG,

On 06/07/2011 18:35, Chris Lilley wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 15, 2010, 9:03:46 PM, Internationalization wrote:
> ICWGIT>  I18N-ISSUE-6: Localization mechanism too restricted [WOFF]
> ICWGIT>  http://www.w3.org/International/track/issues/6
> This comment is being tracked as our last call issue 12
> http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html#issue-12
> ICWGIT>  I'm therefore proposing that you extend the localization
> ICWGIT>  selection mechanism to vendor, credit and licensee elements
> ICWGIT>  (which would also reinforce the comment that proposes that the
> ICWGIT>  content of these elements be element content rather than attribute values).
> The WebFonts WG has considered this issue further and can see several ways forward:
> 1) Change the vendor, credit, and licensee elements so that what was previously attribute content becomes element content. This has the disadvantage that all deployed content becomes non-conforming, and the WOFF spec requires that non-conforming content is not displayed. So this would be a hard, breaking change to a spec which is already in widespread use.
> 2) Change the vendor, credit, and licensee elements so that the author has a choice of using either attribute content or element content. This allows the simple cases to continue as before, while allowing more complex cases to use the greater flexibility of multiple child elements. The specification would need to define what happens is an author uses both at once, whether it is non conforming or whether there is a precedence for which is used, or whether they add together. This is an additional complexity.
> 3) Leave these elements as they are, but consider either option 1 or 2 as appropriate for the next version of the specification. The charter puts an emphasis on documenting existing practice and on avoiding incompatible change, so on balance we would prefer to leave things as they are for this version defer a change to the next version.
> We hope that the I18n Core WG can accept this decision.

Richard Ishida
Internationalization Activity Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)


Register for the W3C MultilingualWeb Workshop!
Limerick, 21-22 September 2011
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2011 14:38:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:37:36 UTC