Re: [Justfont] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-02.txt

Chris Lilley <> Mon, 09 May 2016 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD18512D5AC for <>; Mon, 9 May 2016 10:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UoCgmV4J9Fhi for <>; Mon, 9 May 2016 10:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FEF012D5A9 for <>; Mon, 9 May 2016 10:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2620:0:1002:fd01:a5c3:2d5a:ac44:4b07] by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1azpJT-000AJk-54 for; Mon, 09 May 2016 17:49:48 +0000
References: <> <> <>
From: Chris Lilley <>
Organization: W3C
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 10:49:41 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------93129D135AEDF4026D748558"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Justfont] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-02.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Font Top Level Media Type \(just font\) WG" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 17:49:52 -0000

On 16/05/09 03:45, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> Please review the draft carefully and raise any remaining issues here.
> - The draft doesn't mention or reference RFC 6838 
> (, Media Type Specifications and 
> Registration Procedures) at all, but it should definitely do so; in 
> particular, it should reference section 4.2.7.,  Additional Top-Level 
> Types.
> (see

Agreed. I opened an issue for this

Your pull request neatly solves this, so i merged it and closed the 
issue again.

> - The start of section 7 introduces @font-face format identifiers. It 
> uses the word "defined" for these, but only talks about the types 
> defined in the document itself. This raises the following questions:
>   - Are registrations of new subtypes supposed to give this
>     information, too? If yes, who is responsible to avoid conflicts?
>     (we could just ask IANA to check that the identifier doesn't clash
>      with that of another subtype)
>   - Will a future version of css-fonts-3 reference the IANA registry
>     for these values, or how will potential discrepancies be solved?
>   - If the information in css-fonts-3 is supposed to be normative, and
>     the information in the IANA registry just informative, then
>     clearly say so in the draft.

This is a very good point. I have opened an issue

This requires discussion, as there are several options and it is not 
immediately clear which is best.

> The main editorial problems can be categorized as follows:
> - Repeated use of the word "believe", and other wordings that may be 
> appropriate at an early draft stage, but will look strange in a 
> published document, especially down the road.

Noted. I added an editorial issue
and will review such wording.

Suggestions for better wording 9or simply to cut particular parts of the 
text) very welcome.

> - Many very long sentences that could easily be split up into shorter 
> ones.

Yes. I added another editorial issue

Thanks for your careful review, Martin!

Chris Lilley
Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain