Re: [css3-fonts] Comments on CSS3 Fonts Module LC

Hi Vlad,

> Subclause 4.1 and 4.3: Examples 8 & 9 (nitpick) - Considering that
> WOFF format is now a W3C Recommendation and is widely supported,
> would it be better to use '.woff' as a default example (here and
> elsewhere) of a downloadable font? The use of '.ttf' fonts as
> examples may be seen as recommended usage by some folks, I'd rather
> change that perception by using '.woff' for spec examples. The
> "Example 9" in subclause 4.3 deserves a special attention, where
> '.eot' is used as an example of source definition for use "with
> older, non-conformant user agents" while the use of '.ttf' implies
> conformance. [to what?]

Makes sense.  Changed .ttf examples to .woff and trimmed "non-conformant".

Do these changes resolve your concern?

Cheers,

John Daggett

revision: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/dbd4337ff7d7