Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

"Martin J. Dürst" <> Thu, 10 November 2011 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A7D711E80AB for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:56:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.575
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aZ1xMe8t42+5 for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9495011E8088 for <>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:56:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id pAA6trkq007150 for <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:55:53 +0900
Received: from (unknown []) by with smtp id 6627_3d8b_0804ccde_0b69_11e1_89fb_001d096c566a; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:55:53 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([]:45807) by with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S156B66E> for <> from <>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:55:56 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:55:36 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <> <24FBF40353ABCC3A4F15E82B@PST.JCK.COM> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: " Discuss" <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/*
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 06:56:01 -0000

I think it may be too early to discuss procedural points, but we are 
speaking about one, potentially two, drafts, both of which quite short. 
In the old days, AD-sponsored individual submission(s) would have been 
best. Now, we might need to move it through the Apps WG.

Trying to do anything like a BOF or a WG seems complete overkill. There 
are many people involved in fonts (in particular Web fonts). But I can't 
imagine them shell out the money just to come to an IETF meeting for 
getting a few types registered.

This is not about a spec for a new protocol or format. The formats 
exist, some of them for more than 10 years, some of them more recent. 
It's just about giving them labels.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2011/11/10 11:30, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 11/10/2011 5:00 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
>> Sounds like a call for a BOF.
> For a topic like this, I believe a BOF makes sense only for either or
> both of:
> 1. Interactive tutorial, to create a community of folk who share a
> common set of information and are going to proceed doing some work on
> the topic. Hence, this would prime the work pump.
> 2. Debate particulars, prior to formulating a spec. One can argue that
> that sounds like a regular working group, but I've tailored the
> description to fit a before-wg phase. In any event, this presumes that
> folks are already sharing a common base of knowledge and details and
> merely need to debates some details.
> My sense of this extended thread is that the group ain't quite far
> enough along for #2. I can't tell whether #1 is needed.
> d/