Subject: [Justfont] I-D Action: draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 11:21:38 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Font Top Level Media Type of the IETF.

        Title           : The font Top Level Type 
        Author          : Chris Lilley
	Filename        : draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-02.txt
	Pages           : 16
	Date            : 2016-05-03

Abstract:
   This memo serves to register and document the "font" Top Level Type,
   under which the Internet Media subtypes for representation formats
   for fonts may be registered.  This document also serves as a
   registration application for a set of intended subtypes, which are
   representative of some existing subtypes already in use, and
   currently registered under the "application" tree by their separate
   registrations.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-02

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Wendy Seltzer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 00:18:48 -0400

As our issues list for this draft is empty, it's ready for WGLC.

Please review the draft carefully and raise any remaining issues here.
Statements of support are also welcome.

WGLC will end on 30 May, 2016.

Thanks,
--Wendy

On 05/03/2016 02:21 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Justfont mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/justfont
> 

-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- [email-masked] +1.617.715.4883 (office)
Policy Counsel and Domain Lead, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
https://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 19:45:15 +0900

Hello Wendy, others,

[I'm sorry that I haven't participated in earlier discussions; I made 
several attempts to subscribe to the mailing list, but apparently on 
multiple occasions didn't complete the subscription.]

 > Statements of support are also welcome.

I fully and wholeheartedly support the intent of the draft. A top-level 
type for fonts should have been created long ago, but it's never too 
late, because of the evidence we have.

> Please review the draft carefully and raise any remaining issues here.

My review is based on the -01 draft, but that and the -02 draft are 
virtually identical (see e.g. 
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-02.txt).

In my view, the draft is unfortunately not yet ready to be sent to the 
IESG/IETF, but I think the issues can be fixed quickly.

Technical issues:

- The draft doesn't mention or reference RFC 6838 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838, Media Type Specifications and 
Registration Procedures) at all, but it should definitely do so; in 
particular, it should reference section 4.2.7.,  Additional Top-Level Types.
(see https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/pull/11)

- The start of section 7 introduces @font-face format identifiers. It 
uses the word "defined" for these, but only talks about the types 
defined in the document itself. This raises the following questions:
   - Are registrations of new subtypes supposed to give this
     information, too? If yes, who is responsible to avoid conflicts?
     (we could just ask IANA to check that the identifier doesn't clash
      with that of another subtype)
   - Will a future version of css-fonts-3 reference the IANA registry
     for these values, or how will potential discrepancies be solved?
   - If the information in css-fonts-3 is supposed to be normative, and
     the information in the IANA registry just informative, then
     clearly say so in the draft.

The main editorial problems can be categorized as follows:

- Repeated use of the word "believe", and other wordings that may be 
appropriate at an early draft stage, but will look strange in a 
published document, especially down the road.

- Many very long sentences that could easily be split up into shorter ones.

Because these issues are mostly editorial, I'll try to provide some pull 
requests on Github. I have already made two.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Chris Lilley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 10:49:41 -0700

> (see https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/pull/11)

Agreed. I opened an issue for this
https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/13

Your pull request neatly solves this, so i merged it and closed the 
issue again.

>     clearly say so in the draft.

This is a very good point. I have opened an issue
https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/14

This requires discussion, as there are several options and it is not 
immediately clear which is best.

> published document, especially down the road.

Noted. I added an editorial issue
https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/15
and will review such wording.

Suggestions for better wording 9or simply to cut particular parts of the 
text) very welcome.

> - Many very long sentences that could easily be split up into shorter 

Yes. I added another editorial issue
https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/16

Thanks for your careful review, Martin!

-- 
Chris Lilley
@svgeesus
Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain

---

From: Wendy Seltzer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 15:54:37 -0400

Thanks Chris and Martin,

> immediately clear which is best.

Maybe you could spark that discussion with a proposed way to resolve the
issue?

Thanks,
--Wendy

---

From: Martin J. Dürst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:59:22 +0900

Hello Wendy,

> Maybe you could spark that discussion with a proposed way to resolve the

I have thought about this a bit, and have come closer to a proposal.

I trust all of the W3C, the IETF, and the IANA, so I don't have a 
preference on that front.

IANA does bookkeeping extremely well, so asking it to do it will make 
sure these identifiers don't get forgotten if there's a font/... 
registration. But that wouldn't apply to font formats registered under 
e.g. application/... (well, that shouldn't happen anymore once we have 
defined font/..., so not a big issue) and font formats that don't get 
registered. Having IANA do it might also be an additional incentive for 
registering the media type.

On the other hand, having to update the CSS spec just because of a new 
font format is work I'd want to avoid if I were in charge of that spec. 
So my proposal would indeed be that all new font/... registrations have 
to provide such a value, and that IANA checks that value and lists it 
somewhere (maybe just the registration template would be enough).

css-font-3 could then be updated to point to that information, but that 
could take its time, no need to hurry.

So that would be my proposal, but if somebody closer to the 'metal', 
e.g. Chris, has different preferences, that would be absolutely fine 
with me, too.

Regards,   Martin.