- From: Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 08:59:19 +0200
- To: <rfink@readableweb.com>
- Cc: "'John Hudson'" <tiro@tiro.com>, "'Sylvain Galineau'" <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "'John Daggett'" <jdaggett@mozilla.com>, "'www-style'" <www-style@w3.org>, "'www-font'" <www-font@w3.org>
On Sep 19, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Richard Fink wrote: > Would it not make a lot of sense to include *a web page* along with the WOFF (or other format) to demonstrate features, rather than a PDF. That would be much, much more effective documentation because the CSS would be there for authors as well. Integrating the advanced features would become more of a cut-and-paste operation. I am assuming it would be quite time consuming for web authors to map what they see in a PDF to the equivalent CSS rules. > (Reserving judgment until I try doing so myself but experience says a web page with CSS rules to guide is going to be one heck of a lot easier.) Whether it's pdf or html is not really an issue here. The point is that this kind of documentation should not be part of the WOFF metadata. Erik
Received on Monday, 20 September 2010 06:59:54 UTC