Re: [websec] font sniffing

[Adam Barth <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 10/25/11 12:42 AM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
>>
>> On 25/10/11 07:30, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011/10/25 11:34, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 10:43:25 +0900, Martin J. Dürst
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But who is at fault is not what we are interested in here I think. We
>>>>>> are interested in defining when implementations have to sniff. They
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> much have to sniff for fonts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. If somebody has enough energy, it would still make sense to
>>>>> register font types.
>>>>
>>>> Because..?
>>>
>>> - Font formats, as well as other Mime types, are not only used by Web
>>> browsers.
>>> - There may be new formats, for which no sniffing is done yet.
>>> - Servers may prefer to declare what they are sending out rather than
>>> to be silent about it, even if not all clients use that information.
>>> - Once we have registered types, sniffing could in the long term maybe
>>> even go away.
>>>
>>> Regards,   Martin.
>>
>> +1 for that.
>
> Based on discussion here and at the W3C TPAC last week, I raised this issue
> on the apps-discuss list:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg03447.html
>
> The immediate reaction was: "do you mean fonts or typefaces?"
>
> Before taking on this work, it would be helpful to understand exactly what
> typographic entities are being sent around by browsers and other
> applications.

Mechanically, resource representations that might get shoved into
@font-face rules.

Adam