On 16/10/12 14:42, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:54 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
W3C is proposing a revised charter for the Web Fonts Working Group.
For more details, see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2012Sep/0016.html
http://www.w3.org/2012/06/WebFonts/draft-charter-ac.html
Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
Monday, October 22. Please reply to this thread if you think
there's something we should say.
Even though there seem to be strong reasons for incompatible changes
to WOFF, it scares me that they are presented as an enhancement to
WOFF as opposed to being presented as a new incompatible format. To
me, it seems essential that the new format not be treated as a mere
enhancement to WOFF for the purpose of the format() specifier in CSS.
That is, the new format should not use format("woff") in CSS but
something else even if only format("woff2"). Maybe this is so obvious
that it isn't written in the charter because it is too obvious or
maybe this is a matter that's considered to be out of scope for the
charter, but, still, discussing an incompatible format as a mere
enhancement without affirming a plan to call it something different
for the purposes of the different format specifier scares me.
It's clear to me (and I think other WG members would readily agree) that
any new, incompatible format, even if referred to as "WOFF 2.0", would
need to be clearly distinguished from the existing WOFF 1.0 - both for
purposes of the CSS format-specifier hint and by the signature field in
the file header - to allow existing UAs that support (only) WOFF 1.0 to
easily skip/reject WOFF 2.0 files.
I don't think you need to be concerned that the Web Fonts WG is likely
to define a new, incompatible "WOFF 2.0" format without addressing this
aspect.
JK
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
