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

Chris Lilley <> Mon, 21 November 2011 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B8821F8BD5 for <>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:22:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.91
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_93=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 213TIX+y3p8R for <>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:22:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5363321F8BF9 for <>; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:22:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <>) id 1RSSsy-0000z7-Vl; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:22:09 -0500
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:22:15 +0100
From: Chris Lilley <>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.95.6) Home
Organization: W3C
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <>
To: Ned Freed <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:03:24 -0800
Cc: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <>, "" <>, " Adams" <>, David Singer <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] font/* (and draft-freed-media-type-regs)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Chris Lilley <>
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:22:24 -0000

(Catching upon this thread)

On Friday, November 18, 2011, 8:50:51 PM, Ned wrote:

>> 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:


NF> Submitted to whom? It isn't on the IANA page so it hasn't been approved unless
NF> approval was very recent.

In accordance with the usual W3C process for media type registrations
- the registration template is an appendix in the technical specification
- at last call, it gets sent to ietf-types to start discussion
- at proposed rec (ie one the spec is fixed) W3C will ask for IESG approval. This has not happened yet; the spec is in Candidate  Recommendation phase.

NF> It's one thing if this registration is still bouncing around inside of the W3C
NF> process - that's entirely the W3C's baliwick.

Its bouncing around the early stages of both W3C and IETF/IANA processes.

NF>  But if this was submitted to the IESG for approval,

No, not yet, since that requires a stable document to reference,and changes are still possible as a result of Candidate Recommendation implementation experience.

>> ISO SC29/WG11 has prepared the draft to register application/font-sfnt but it
>> wasn't submitted yet.

It has neither been sent to ietf-types not has it been sent to IESG to request approval.

NF> FWIW, there are presently four registered font-ish types:

NF> application/font-tdpfr (RFC 3073)

Yes, Bitstream TrueDoc portable font resource (as used in Netscape 4.x). 

NF> application/vnd.font-fontforge-sfd

Right, the fontforge source file format. Hmm,so UFO format is not yet registered.

NF> application/
NF> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.fontTable+xml

I was unaware of those, thanks for the pointer. of course, had all these been registered in a font/* tree then discovery would be so much easier.

 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups