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

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <[e-mail]>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Chris Lilley" <[e-mail]>; "Ned Freed" <[e-mail]>; "David
Singer" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 9:01 PM
> Adding Chris Lilley from W3C
>
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:17 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >
> > On 11/16/11 7:22 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> >
> > > However, the sentiments expressed at the time were very similar to
> > > this discussion; I was told that applying for a new top-level type
> > > was "A BIG NO-NO", that prior attempts to register font/* failed, and
> > > that unless I am willing to dedicate significant part of my life to
> > > this activity (i.e. applying and lobbying for a new top-level "font"
> > > type) the effort would most likely get us nowhere.
> >
> > Perhaps I am mistaken, but I read the discussion differently: I see an
> > openness to registering font/* now.
> >
> > My personal opinion is that registering font/* type still makes a lot of
sense and this is something we need to do, even if it involves re-registering
some of the existing subtypes under the new font/* tree. I brought this up for
discussion at today's conference call with W3C WebFonts WG, and the general
opinion was that having font/* type registered would still be a good thing for
the industry.
>
Vlad

Just to be clear, what meaning does WebFonts attach to 'font', were it an object
class, how would it be characterised?  This thread has shown a number of
different meanings of the term and I am not familiar with the work of W3C.

Tom Petch

> Thank you,
> Vlad
>