Re: [apps-discuss] font/*

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Thu, 10 November 2011 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4802B1F0C3E for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:40:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.557
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.557 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.233, 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 mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Veqs99RblitL for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:40:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304501F0C34 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 17:40:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id pAA1e2Em006743 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:40:02 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 5910_43da_e7c7b8b8_0b3c_11e1_bbef_001d096c5782; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:40:01 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:36242) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S156B456> for <apps-discuss@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:40:04 +0900
Message-ID: <4EBB2B60.9010108@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:39:44 +0900
From: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <4EB86078.8070904@stpeter.im> <BDC0F178EEB88CC4B3D24020@PST.JCK.COM> <4EB8D0F4.9020907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <555BA718-A5FA-4111-9A8B-1DE99921CCE2@standardstrack.com> <60D34A5D-985C-4C97-A4FA-3CBF5CD31FCF@mnot.net> <4EB9D49C.5010100@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <4EBABEEA.8030905@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4EBABEEA.8030905@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org Discuss" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/*
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:40:17 -0000

On 2011/11/10 2:56, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> Now, whether we need a top-level content type of "font", resulting in
> subtypes like font/woff (instead of, say, application/font-woff [1]) is
> another story...

It would be good if we could answer this question soon, and hopefully in 
the positive.

The (Web)font community has tried to get a font/ top level type 
repeatedly, with bad results. At least two attempts are documented.

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2009JulSep/1069.html, 
Chris Lilley describes his attempt around 1998 or so, which met active 
resistance ("we will strenuously oppose this and take up lots of your 
time if you persist").

The second attempt is documented at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Nov/0012.html
which got a single, (from their point of view) rather scary reply.

Unless we can tell them that we will look at a new proposal favorably, 
(at least) because either a new font/ or reusing application/ look okay, 
and if they think font/ is better, they should go with it, then I don't 
think they'll have the courage to try again.

Regards,   Martin.