Re: [Justfont] Review of draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-03.txt

Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> Wed, 16 November 2016 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <chris@w3.org>
X-Original-To: justfont@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: justfont@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FDA8129410; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:54:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RTa7amdCrKFE; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:54:15 -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 CFB2012943F; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:54:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [2601:182:cc03:50e8:21c2:f954:d6b9:2ca4] by raoul.w3.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <chris@w3.org>) id 1c6tAk-0000lh-Dl; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:54:14 +0000
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>, justfont@ietf.org
References: <18E23672-B57D-44F3-8AB5-D6EA6A336E8D@seantek.com>
From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Organization: W3C
Message-ID: <c580501e-6a62-b5d4-1476-0add0d9387a3@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:54:10 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <18E23672-B57D-44F3-8AB5-D6EA6A336E8D@seantek.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/justfont/SxMPRaf0NWBronJ5X97lHzwgaaA>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Justfont] Review of draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-03.txt
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: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 05:54:17 -0000


On 2016-11-15 22:52, Sean Leonard wrote:
> ***
> 8.  New Registrations
>
>
>     New font formats should be registered using the online form.  RFC 6838
>     should be consulted on
>     registration procedures.  In particular the font specification must
>     be freely available and the ABNF must be followed.  Also, an @font-
>     face format should be supplied and, if used, a definition of the
>     fragment identifier syntax for the new type.
>
> ***
>
> The third sentence may not (should not) always be true. Font specifications in the vnd. and prs. facets do not need to be “freely available”.
True; this section was thinking about new unfaceted registrations in the 
standards tree, as font/foo.

Perhaps "In particular (with the exception of new registrations in the 
vnd. and prs. facets) the font specification must ..."

>   “ABNF must be followed” is used without any references. What ABNF are you referring to? Of course “the ABNF” should be followed, but that is a consequence of RFC 6838 and others; this draft does not contain any ABNF.
Agreed, and already noted by Dale R. Worley; the clause has been removed.
> It is not clear what the first two sentences really add to the text:
>
> Of course new font formats should be registered using the online form. But, they should also be discussed on media-types@iana.org prior to attempting to register them formally. I do not see a reason to write this.
>
> Of course RFC 6838 should be consulted on registration procedures...one could write that RFC 6838 MUST be consulted on registration procedures. But, unless this document changes something about RFC 6838 (which it does not), I do not see a reason to write this.
This document does not change anything about the registration procedures 
in general, but does require the form to be slightly updated (to allow 
the @font-face format to be supplied). The rest of that section is 
really just a reminder, rather than being normative. Do you consider 
that to be a bad idea? I do recall that people tend to forget to define 
fragment identifiers when registering new types, for example.
> Other than these points, the document seems to be in pretty good shape.
Thanks!

-- 
Chris Lilley
@svgeesus
Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain