Re: Last call comments on WOFF (3)

On Feb 8, 2011, at 15:58, Chris Lilley wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 4:16:26 PM, Bert wrote:
> 
> BB> 3) Section 7 Private date block: Why is the padding at the end a  
> BB> "should"? I could understand "must" (something you can test), or  
> BB> "may" (just ignore it). But if you are going to ignore the padding  
> BB> anyway, why should generators try hard to not write it? Ditto for the
> BB> padding of the extended metadata block.
> 
> BB> It is also ironic that the specification accuses the OpenType spec of
> BB> not being clear about the padding of the final table, and then itself
> BB> allows that padding to vary. (Sure, WOFF is not _unclear_, but the  
> BB> effect is the same. Imagine that some future Meta-WOFF wants to  
> BB> encode WOFF: it will have the same problems as WOFF in ensuring  
> BB> roundtrip encoding...)
> 
> BB> Which means that a "must" seems the best choice. Whether it is "must  
> BB> be omitted" or "must be included" is less important, although doing  
> BB> the same for all blocks, whether the last or not, seems easiest.
> 
> We agree and have decided that "must be omitted" makes most sense. Thus, the end of the private data block (if present) coincides with the end of the file.
> 
> Please let us know if this change responds to your comment. (your other comments will be the subject of separate mails, for tracking).

(Sorry for the delay, I had sorted these messages into the wrong mailbox.)

The resolution looks fine.

> 
> Tracker, this relates to
> ACTION-70
> Replace last sentence of section 7: End of Private Data block must correspond with the end of the last file



Bert
-- 
  Bert Bos                                ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/
  http://www.w3.org/people/bos                               W3C/ERCIM
  [email protected]                             2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
  +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92            06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France