Subject: [Justfont] Editorial issues

From: Chris Lilley <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 16:35:04 +0100

Hello,

The list of closed issues is at
  https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aclosed

Any of these can be re-opened if there is further discussion, of
course.

Four were editorial:

 - Add CSS3 fonts reference #4
     https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/4

   The 'format' part of the @font-face src descriptor was used
   without a reference to the defining specification. I added the
   reference.

 - WOFF "published specification" #5
     https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/5

   The text said that, for WOFF 1.0
   "This media type registration is extracted from the WOFF
   specification at W3C."

   Except it wasn't. The WOFF 1.0 spec had the old,
   application/font-woff registration. I changed this to say

   "This media type registration updates the the WOFF
   specification at W3C."
   (Once this ID becomes an RFC, the W3C WebFonts WG will errata
   WOFF 1.0 to point to it).

 - Drop "Primary Content Type" for "Top level Type" #8
     https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/8

    The phrase "Primary Content Type", copied from the model/*
    registration, is obsolete and should be changed for the correct
    term, "Top Level Type". I changed all occurrences.

 - IETF nits #9
     https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/9

    This issue was to remind me to fix nits at
https://tools.ietf.org/idnits?url=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel-00.txt

   The issues were:

   ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See
      Section 2.2 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the
      case when there are no actions for IANA.)

   ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative
      References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for
      downward references.

   ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the
      recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119
      keywords.

   The issue was closed by adding explicit Normative and Informative
   references, correctly using the xref element, and adding a
   reference to RFC 2119.

   Two issues were not editorial but seemed clear-cut. Apologies if I
   closed them prematurely:

 -  Magic number for SVG #3
      https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/3

   The specification talks about magic numbers for TrueType and
   CFFe outlines, so I opened an issue asking about a magic number
   for SVG outlines.

   Rod Sheeter commented on the GitHub issue with a quote from the
   OpenType spec which verified that the existing magic numbers were
   correct. In addition, SVG outlines alsways occur together with
   either TrueType or CFF outlines, not by themselves. Thus, there is
   no magic number for SVG as such.

 - OpenType shaping parameter #1
     https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues/1

   This was an issue raised on draft-lilley but not resolved before
   this IETF WG was created. it was raised by Grzegorz Rolek on
   Twitter. he pointed out that the abbreviation "OTF" (OpenType
   Format) was being used both as a format specifier and also as a
   layout language specifier. The correct term for the latter is "OTL"
   (OpenType Layout).

   I corrected the draft to use OTF where the format was meant, and
   OTL where the layout was meant.

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