The font Top Level Type
Network Working Group C. Lilley
Intended status: Standards Track December 13, 2016
Expires: June 16, 2017
The font Top Level Type
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
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 16, 2017.
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Lilley Expires June 16, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft The font Top Level Type December 2016
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
1. Specification Development
[Note to the RFC Editor: Please remove this section upon
This section is non-normative. The source for this specification is
maintained on GitHub . The issues list  is also on GitHub.
Discussion should be on the mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org .
The process of setting type in computer systems and other forms of
text presentation systems uses fonts in order to provide visual
representations of the glyphs. Just as with images, for example,
there are a number of ways to represent the visual information of the
glyphs. Early font formats often used bitmaps, as these could have
been carefully tuned for maximum readability at a given size on low-
resolution displays. More recently, scalable vector outline fonts
have come into widespread use: in these fonts, the outlines of the
glyphs are described, and the presentation system renders the outline
in the desired position and size.
Over time, a number of standard formats for recording font
descriptions have evolved. This document defines a new top-level
Internet Media Type "font" according to Section 4.2.7 of [RFC6838].
This top-level type indicates that the content specifies font data.
Under this top-level type, different representation formats of fonts
may be registered.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
3. Background and Justification
Historically there has not been a registration of formats for fonts.
More recently, there have been several representation formats
registered as media subtypes under the "application" top-level type
(for example, application/font-woff). However, with the rapid
adoption of web fonts (based on the data from HTTP Archive
[HTTP-Archive-Trends] showing a huge increase in web font usage from
1% in the end of 2010 to 50% across all sites in the beginning of
2015) custom fonts on the web have become a core web resource. As
the in-depth analysis [Font-Media-Type-Analysis] shows, the lack of
the intuitive top-level font type is causing significant confusion
Show full document text