Subject: [Justfont] New draft, includes text for the three remaining issues.

From: Chris Lilley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:19:11 -0500

Hello,

A new -01 draft was published,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel/
(link has text, pdf and html version)

with text incorporating discussions on the three remaining issues:

* Multiple outlines #2
https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/2

The new draft includes the suggested wording from Vlad Levantovsky, a
bit more open-ended than what I had suggested, to allow for future
spec changes. It defers to the OFF spec on allowed combinations rather
than listing those which are currently possible.

Either way, it clarifies that there is no magic number of fonts
containing SVG outlines.

*  Media type for OpenType collections #6
https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/6

The new draft defines the font/collection type. On advice from Ken
Lunde and Rod Sheeter, just the one type is used for both TrueType
Collections and (Opentype) Collections, and the suggested filename
extension is .ttf for both, to conform to common practice.

*  Fragment syntax for collections #7
https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/7

This uses the same fragment syntax as is used (in an illustrative
example) in the CSS3 Fonts spec. It is used on font/collection and
also on font/woff2 because unlike woff1, woff2 can encode collections.

The spec language also adresses the interpretation when the fragment
is omitted (it is the first font in the collection), and for woff2,
also what happens if a fragment is provided but the woff does not
encode a collection (fragment ignored, no effect).

Does the new draft correctly capture the group consensus? If so, I can
close off these issues.

-- 
Best regards,
 Chris  Lilley
 Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain