Re: Last call comments on WOFF (1)

Hello Bert,

In this email
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2011JanMar/0009.html
you said:


> 1) I'd like to say one more time that letting a URL carry
> information about the meaning of a resource is counter to W3C's
> common architecture for the Web and simply a bad idea. If I move a
> file to a different server (and hopefully leave a redirect behind),
> the file still means the same thing. If I distribute it over p2p, on
> a CD, or coin a URN for it, it is still the same file and should not
> act any differently. Going against this architecture *will* lead to
> problems.
> 
> And it's not like we don't know how to do it right. The way to encode  
> usage metadata for fonts, in a protocol-independent and machine  
> readable way, was invented by Microsoft for EOT more than ten years  
> ago. The exact syntax doesn't matter, but the data has to be at the  
> application level, not in the URL and not in the protocol.

Vladimir responded, asking you for clarification
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2011JanMar/0025.html

and so did I
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2011JanMar/0046.html

Could you please respond to those questions, as we don't really
understand the point you are making.




-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups