[mpeg-OTspec] RE: font media types [1 Attachment] -- WOFF?

Levantovsky, Vladimir vladimir.levantovsky at monotypeimaging.com
Fri Apr 8 21:10:51 CEST 2011

I uploaded the text of the PDAM to ISO with all the recent changes (see attached). We should continue the discussion and, if any changes are desired, please submit them as ballot comments.

Thank you,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 4:40 PM
> To: Bob Hallissy
> Cc: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com; lemon at adobe.com; chris at w3.org;
> tabatkins at google.com; karsten.luecke at kltf.de; singer at apple.com
> Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] RE: font media types [1 Attachment] -- WOFF?
> I am also learning all this stuff as I plow ahead :)
> WOFF was developed with the emphasis on being a container format for
> _any_ sfnt-based font, without being specific of a particular type of
> font that may be encapsulated in WOFF file. My understanding that the
> 'font-woff' MIME type is intended to be used to enable a browser to
> properly recognize the format of the resource to be able make a
> decision:
> a) whether it is something that should be downloaded, and
> b) whether it is capable to unwrap the file and retrieve a font
> packaged in WOFF.
> It is assumed that the unwrapped font would then be processed by the
> underlying OS font rendering system, and you are right - there may be a
> case when a font contains data that is not understood by the given font
> engine. I don't know what would be the right way to deal with it, but
> this may be a good case for defining additional optional parameters
> that would provide further info on the type of payload inside WOFF
> container. (I will bring this up for WebFonts WG to discuss.)
> Similarly, I can imagine that the same mechanism (i.e. optional
> parameters) could be used to define the type of layout tables a font
> may contain, e.g. to differentiate OT/TrueType font from AAT or
> Graphite.
> If we decide this is needed, we could define an additional set of
> parameters later. This document is in the first stage of the amendment
> process, and can be modified if necessary. I wouldn't want us to make
> hectic decisions right on the spot because the editorial deadline is
> approaching, but we can continue this discussion and introduce further
> changes as the ballot comments. I will hold off the submission of the
> application to IANA until we are in agreement on how we would like to
> proceed.
> Thank you and regards,
> Vladimir
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Hallissy [mailto:bobh528 at yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 4:02 PM
> > To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> > Cc: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com; lemon at adobe.com; chris at w3.org;
> > tabatkins at google.com; karsten.luecke at kltf.de; singer at apple.com
> > Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] RE: font media types [1 Attachment] --
> >
> > On 2011-04-07  at 14:36  Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> > > WOFF format already has 'application/font-woff' defined as the MIME
> > > type for it.
> >
> > Apologies in advance for my ignorance about mime types.
> >
> > So does "application/font-woff" have any mechanism to specify whether
> > the woff package includes TTF or CFF outlines, or OT tables, etc?  If
> > woff doesn't need that, are we sure "application/font-off" needs it?
> Or
> > if OFF needs it, shouldn't WOFF need it? (and shouldn't we be taking
> > the
> > same approach?)
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Size: 295 bytes
Desc: w11924.zip
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20110408/0076e868/attachment.bin>

More information about the mpeg-otspec mailing list