On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote: > On 10/25/11 12:42 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote: >> >> On 25/10/11 07:30, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >>> >>> On 2011/10/25 11:34, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:43:25 +0900, Martin J. Dürst >>>> <due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> But who is at fault is not what we are interested in here I think. We >>>>>> are interested in defining when implementations have to sniff. They >>>>>> very >>>>>> much have to sniff for fonts. >>>>> >>>>> Yes. If somebody has enough energy, it would still make sense to >>>>> register font types. >>>> >>>> Because..? >>> >>> - Font formats, as well as other Mime types, are not only used by Web >>> browsers. >>> - There may be new formats, for which no sniffing is done yet. >>> - Servers may prefer to declare what they are sending out rather than >>> to be silent about it, even if not all clients use that information. >>> - Once we have registered types, sniffing could in the long term maybe >>> even go away. >>> >>> Regards, Martin. >> >> +1 for that. > > Based on discussion here and at the W3C TPAC last week, I raised this issue > on the apps-discuss list: > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg03447.html > > The immediate reaction was: "do you mean fonts or typefaces?" > > Before taking on this work, it would be helpful to understand exactly what > typographic entities are being sent around by browsers and other > applications.
Mechanically, resource representations that might get shoved into @font-face rules. Adam _______________________________________________ websec mailing list websec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
