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

Levantovsky, Vladimir vladimir.levantovsky at monotypeimaging.com
Fri Apr 15 21:44:51 CEST 2011

Dear all,

I brought Bob's question to the attention of the WebFonts WG, and the result of the discussion that followed is summarized below:

WebFonts WG realizes that there are many devices with different capabilities. The media type "application/font-woff" was registered specifically for use with WOFF resources - according to the WOFF spec, the primary purpose of the WOFF as a resource type is to be used for Web documents where fonts are linked by means of CSS @font-face rule. Since CSS has its own mechanism to signal format hints, they believe that no additional optional parameters are needed for 'font-woff', even though the WG acknowledged the fact that other applications may benefit from having different media types and, possibly, additional optional parameters defined for fonts.

Thank you,

> -----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] -- WOFF?
> 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

More information about the mpeg-otspec mailing list