- From: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 23:39:40 +0200
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
David Woolley wrote: > > Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > >> Content-Type: font/truetype >> Content-Type: font/opentype >> Content-Type: font/type1 >> Content-Type: font/type3 >> Content-Type: font/cff >> >> Do these make sense? Which other formats should be listed? > > SVG, various X font formats, Windows bitmap fonts formats, etc. I agree that these should all have Media Types, but I'm not sure W3C can define them. W3C is indeed a standards body as required by IANA rules, but such a standards body may only register MIME types for its own standards. In other words, if we make EOT a Recommendation, we can easily include a section in the spec that defines a media type for it. (The IESG must still approve the type, but if the spec passes W3C's process, there is no reason why the IESG should find problems in it.) But for the other formats, either the bodies that standardized them have to create the media type, or somebody has to write (an Internet Draft and then) an RFC for them, following the usual IETF process. Another question is if the the top-level should be "font/". Convincing the IETF to accept a new top-level type will be a long process. A name such as "application/eot" will no doubt be easier. > > As you are distinguishing between type1 and type3 PostScript fonts, you > probably need to distinguish between EOT and basic OpenType. (The only > reason you would want to distinguish between type1 and type3 is for > content negotiation, so you may want to consider the effect on the > length of the HTTP Accept header. Yes, I think EOT and OpenType need to be distinguished somehow in the media type. An application that can handle one doesn't necessarily handle the other. 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 Tuesday, 20 May 2008 21:40:52 UTC