Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: "Ned Freed" <ned.freed@mrochek.com>; <apps-discuss@ietf.org>;
<gadams@xfsi.com>; "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>; "David Singer"
<singer@apple.com>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 3:35 PM

> Hello Marin, all,
>
> Besides vendor-specific types, the only registered font type that I am aware
of is 'application/font-woff'. W3C WebFonts WG has submitted a registration for
this subtype about a year ago, and the text of the registration is available as
Annex B of the WOFF specification:
http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/#appendix-b
>

Looking at this URI I found at least a partial answer to my earlier question as
to what W3C mean by font, namely
"This document specifies a simple compressed file format for fonts, designed
primarily for use on the Web and known as WOFF (Web Open Font Format). Despite
this name, WOFF should be regarded as a container format or "wrapper" for font
data in already-existing formats rather than an actual font format in its own
right."
which, to me, broadens the scope yet more, not that it should not be registered
but just what branch of the tree it should be in.

Tom Petch

> ISO SC29/WG11 has prepared the draft to register application/font-sfnt but it
wasn't submitted yet.
>
> Thank you,
> Vlad
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> > Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 2:03 AM
> > To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
> > Cc: Peter Saint-Andre; Chris Lilley; Ned Freed; David Singer; apps-
> > discuss@ietf.org; gadams@xfsi.com Adams
> > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)
> >
> > Hello Vlad,
> >
> > On 2011/11/17 5:01, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> > > Adding Chris Lilley from W3C
> >
> > > On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:17 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >
> > >> Perhaps I am mistaken, but I read the discussion differently: I see
> > an
> > >> openness to registering font/* now.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes. I guess I should've been more specific and should have said that
> > the sentiments expressed few years ago were similar to what was
> > mentioned as part of this discussion (or as quoted from prior
> > discussions). I do see a much more open-minded position to registering
> > font/* now - the question is whether there is still a utility value
> > left in doing this (since we already have quite a few font-* subtypes
> > registered under the application/* tree.
> >
> > You mention that there are quite a few font types already registered
> > under application/. Earlier discussion only brought up
> > application/font-tdpfr (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3073) a format
> > that as far as I was able to conclude from a quick web search, is no
> > longer much in fashion (you may know better).
> >
> > Can you tell us what the other font types under application/ are?
> >
> > Regards,    Martin.
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>