On 11/9/11 10:30 AM, Adam Barth wrote:
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.
Based on Anne's previous message to this list [1], it seems that we're
actually talking about font representation formats (his examples are
TrueType Collection, OpenType, TrueType, and Web Open Font Format)
instead of particular fonts (e.g., "12pt Georgia Bold Italic") or
typefaces (e.g., "Georgia").
Correct?
/psa
[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/websec/current/msg00235.html
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
websec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
