Subject: Re: [Justfont] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-02.txt

From: Wendy Seltzer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:49:29 -0400

We seem to have stalled here, though we're very close. Can anyone poke
at the three open issues to suggest resolutions?
https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues

Chris, can you please review the open pull requests?
https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/pulls

Thanks,
--Wendy

On 05/09/2016 01:49 PM, Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16/05/09 03:45, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>>
>>> Please review the draft carefully and raise any remaining issues here.
>>
>>
>> - 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)
> 
> 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.
> 
>> - 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> 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
>> ones.
> 
> Yes. I added another editorial issue
> https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/16
> 
> Thanks for your careful review, Martin!
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
http://wendy.seltzer.org/        +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)

---

From: Chris Lilley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:42:54 -0400

Hi Wendy

> https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues
*Wording too tentative*

These were all in the "Background and Justification" section. The 
wording has been tightened up by
ea46d07. 
<https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/commit/ea46d0788e6d1f7bf1143ce90fd985f5bc23994a> 
As this was editorial and trivial, I closed the issue

*Long sentences*

I marked this as editorial and am going through looking for overly long 
sentences.

*Where are @font-face format identifiers defined?*
https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/14

This is substantive. To-date, the authoritative definition has been the 
CSS 3 Fonts specification (and before that, the CSS 2.0 specification). 
Thus my initial thought was that this should continue. Martin asked 
whether new registrations should give that info too, and I agree that 
they should. I

In that case, IANA would check for uniqueness (as they already do for 
subtype names) and the authoritative definition would be the 
registration itself (including the registrations included in the present 
document) and CSS 3 Fonts would update to state that the registrations 
are the official source, once the RFC was published.

It still seems useful to have a list of @font-face formats, so they 
would stay in CSS 3 Fonts as an informative list. The W3C errata 
mechanism could be used in the event of new registrations after CSS 3 
Fonts becomes a W3C Recommendation.

I recalled seeing a registration template in earlier MIME specifications 
and went looking for it. I had planned to copy it into the present 
document, adding the @font-face format field. However, reading through 
RFC 6838 it seems that this has been replaced by an online form:
http://www.iana.org/form/media-types

I have added this as an informative reference in the IANA considerations 
section. I have started to add a section on 'New Registrations' which 
points to this form, and also references the ABNF of section /4.2. 
Naming Requirements/ of RFC 6838 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6838#section-4.2>. Should this document 
then state that it updates RFC 6838? How should we go about getting the 
online form updated to include the @font-face format to the "additional 
information" section of that form?

Also, is that form the sole way to do new registrations or is there 
still a textual template somewhere which people can edit as a plain text 
email for ietf-types as was done previously?

(Off topic, but it would also be good to know who to contact about 
updates to the form because it has a link to RFC 3013, which was 
obsoleted by RFC 7303; this should be corrected).

> https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/pulls
Both reviewed and merged

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