[Justfont] Where are @font-face format identifiers defined?

"Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org> Thu, 08 December 2016 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <chris@w3.org>
X-Original-To: justfont@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: justfont@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6123129A5B for <justfont@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.796
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sln6LJxxZz_S for <justfont@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:55:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from raoul.w3.org (raoul.w3.org [IPv6:2001:470:8b2d:804:52:12:128:0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D86D129A73 for <justfont@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:55:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 30-9-49.wireless.csail.mit.edu ([]) by raoul.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <chris@w3.org>) id 1cF7ay-000BAX-Sq for justfont@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2016 22:55:20 +0000
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_22104135.832487223706"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 17:55:14 -0500
Message-ID: <9a7c34fb-28a7-456f-aaa4-f785ee64b60b@getmailbird.com>
From: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
To: "" <justfont@ietf.org>
User-Agent: Mailbird/
X-Mailbird-ID: 9a7c34fb-28a7-456f-aaa4-f785ee64b60b@getmailbird.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/justfont/K8YowDMsL5dcTS5YbHzD4kRgECQ>
Subject: [Justfont] Where are @font-face format identifiers defined?
X-BeenThere: justfont@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Font Top Level Media Type \(just font\) WG" <justfont.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/justfont>, <mailto:justfont-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/justfont/>
List-Post: <mailto:justfont@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:justfont-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/justfont>, <mailto:justfont-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 22:55:40 -0000

There is an open issue on "Where are @font-face format identifiers defined?"

When the issue was first opened, I was of the opinion that the source of truth should be individual media type registrations. CSS3 Fonts would then informatively list the current format identifiers.

Two things have changed my mind on this issue.

Firstly, not every use of font media types will be with CSS. For example, an online emulator for a game console might use a console-specific font format and might well register a media type for it. There is no good reason that font/snes should have to specify a CSS Fonts format identifier.

Secondly, the use of format strings in CSS is being extended in CSS 4 Fonts, to cope with OpenType 1.8 variable fonts. There are various proposals, some of which directly change the format identifier and some do not.
There is no consensus on the issue at this time.

it therefore seems risky to make the font top level draft specify them normatively.

The other option, as suggested by the original review comment, is to clearly state that the CSS specification is normative and not require new registrations to specify them.

As Wendy mentioned, there is no obvious downside to this, no-one is disadvantaged and it makes things faster. Comments?

Chris Lilley
Technical Director @ W3C
W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design
W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media