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

Chris Lilley <> Tue, 26 July 2016 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BE0112DF8B for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:17:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.187
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GStVnQWxxl_k for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:17:44 -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 3227412E017 for <>; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:43:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2601:182:c500:59ca:25db:10ac:f9b4:75fc] by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1bS3ZV-000AVX-OW; Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:43:01 +0000
To: Wendy Seltzer <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Chris Lilley <>
Organization: W3C
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:42:54 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------176D631F98530E9EB2A6A288"
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: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:17:49 -0000

Hi Wendy

On 2016-07-15 15:49, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> We seem to have stalled here, though we're very close. Can anyone poke
> at the three open issues to suggest resolutions?
*Wording too tentative*

These were all in the "Background and Justification" section. The 
wording has been tightened up by
As this was editorial and trivial, I closed the issue

*Long sentences*

I marked this as editorial and am going through looking for overly long 

*Where are @font-face format identifiers defined?*

This is substantive. To-date, the authoritative definition has been the 
CSS 3 Fonts specification (and before that, the CSS 2.0 specification). 
Thus my initial thought was that this should continue. Martin asked 
whether new registrations should give that info too, and I agree that 
they should. I

In that case, IANA would check for uniqueness (as they already do for 
subtype names) and the authoritative definition would be the 
registration itself (including the registrations included in the present 
document) and CSS 3 Fonts would update to state that the registrations 
are the official source, once the RFC was published.

It still seems useful to have a list of @font-face formats, so they 
would stay in CSS 3 Fonts as an informative list. The W3C errata 
mechanism could be used in the event of new registrations after CSS 3 
Fonts becomes a W3C Recommendation.

I recalled seeing a registration template in earlier MIME specifications 
and went looking for it. I had planned to copy it into the present 
document, adding the @font-face format field. However, reading through 
RFC 6838 it seems that this has been replaced by an online form:

I have added this as an informative reference in the IANA considerations 
section. I have started to add a section on 'New Registrations' which 
points to this form, and also references the ABNF of section /4.2. 
Naming Requirements/ of RFC 6838 
<>;. Should this document 
then state that it updates RFC 6838? How should we go about getting the 
online form updated to include the @font-face format to the "additional 
information" section of that form?

Also, is that form the sole way to do new registrations or is there 
still a textual template somewhere which people can edit as a plain text 
email for ietf-types as was done previously?

(Off topic, but it would also be good to know who to contact about 
updates to the form because it has a link to RFC 3013, which was 
obsoleted by RFC 7303; this should be corrected).

> Chris, can you please review the open pull requests?
Both reviewed and merged

Chris Lilley
Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain