Re: WOFF and extended metadata

On Monday, June 21, 2010, 11:00:15 PM, Sylvain wrote:

>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
>> On Behalf Of Jonathan Kew


>> This is NOT what the key-value metadata extension mechanism is
>> intended for, and we wouldn't want UAs cluttering their "Show Font
>> Info" panel with it anyway.

SG> Strongly agree. This is meant to support font metadata, not
SG> sample pages, demos, advertising and what not. 
SG> It is entirely possible to link to one or more sample pages

Strongly agree with this. As Sylvain has said before, this is what
linking is for.

I was drawn into this because the choice given was 'escape markup in
attributes, or not'. As Jonathan and Sylvain point out, the correct
answer to that is (in this case) 'neither'.

My reason for opposing it is also a very pragmatic one. If we come up
with a spec that puts human-oriented readable text inside attributes
without offering at least an alternative where it is put in element
content, then the I18n Core WG will hammer us about it at Last Call
because its a classic "wrong way to do it" design pattern.

Similarly if we have something that is XML, but has portions that are
obfuscated second-layer-of XML-inside-the-first-layer then I would
expect the TAG to hammer us about that at Last Call and "well, RSS
does that to hide broken HTML" will not, really, be seen as a
plausible defence.

I'm trying to avoid some obvious pitfalls which I have seen trip up
groups in the past when it came to the time for other groups to review
their work.

-- 
 Chris Lilley                    mailto:[email protected]
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG