Add configs for WOFF 2.0 font files

[alrra]

Specification: http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF2/
Browser Support: Chrome 36+

Other links:

• http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF20ER/
• https://code.google.com/p/font-compression-reference/wiki/testing_woff2
• https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-dev/j27Ou4RtvQI/discussion

- Extension: `.woff2` (commonly used/suggested) - Media type: `font/woff2` (commonly used/suggested)

EDIT: see #32 (comment).

Note: from my tests the file extension and the media type don't matter (at least, not in Chrome)

[alrra]

I had a discussion with Vladimir Levantovsky (one of the specification editors) about what will be the recommended file extension and media type for WOFF 2.0 font files. His answers were:

WOFF 2.0 is a new webfont format / font compression technology which is currently being developed by the W3C WebFonts Working Group (http://www.w3.org/2012/06/WebFonts/charter-2012.html). The technology is very recent, with the first public working draft of the WOFF 2.0 specification published on May 8 this year (and the nature of the working drafts in general, and this one in particular is that they are subject to frequent changes which may happen any time at the WG discretion). Having said this, the technology is now relatively stable and I don’t expect any significant changes that would affect the wire format or the major parts of the spec but minor incremental improvements will happen for sure.

You are right that the commonly used file extension for WOFF 2.0 is .woff2, but this hasn’t been discussed in the group and there is no official decision yet as to what the proper file extension should be. I suspect that we may either keep .woff2 if there are no objections, or it is feasible that in order to comply with the currently established industry practices (where all file extensions are limited to 3 or 4 characters) we may need to choose something like . wof2 instead. I will bring this up for discussion at the next WG conference call, and will let you know when we have a decision.

When it comes to media type definition, the situation is a bit more complicated – as it stands right now, there is no official media type registered for WOFF2 files yet. To complicate things even further – there is no top level media type “font” registered by IANA and, technically, any “font/…” types that you may see used in the wild are hacks and are not officially registered by IANA. Historically, all font-related media types were assigned in the “application” media type tree; for example, the WOFF 1.0 format (a predecessor of WOFF 2.0) has officially assigned media type “application/font-woff” (http://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF/#appendix-b). I expect that unless the WebFonts Working Group decides to go ahead and file the application to IANA for a new top-level “font” tree (which is a long and tedious process), we will most likely continue using “application” tree and I’d guess that the new media type is likely to be “application/font-woff2”, at least in the near terms.

the [unofficial] decision on the file extension issue is likely to be made on July 2, when the working group has its next conference call scheduled.

[alrra]

Updates from Vladimir Levantovsky:

The WG discussed the file extension and media type for WOFF2 – as of today the working group decision is that we should stick with “.woff2” file extension as it’s already been used and everyone seems to be happy with it.

When it comes to the media type registration – the situation is a bit more complicated since the registration is governed by IANA as an independent body. It is a relatively easy process to apply and get the subtype registered under an existing top level type, but registering a completely new top level type is a major undertaking. So far, the group has decided to stick with a known process and prepare the application for a new subtype under the “application” tree. This is consistent with the previously registered media type for WOFF 1.0, and is straightforward and well defined process. The working draft of the WOFF 2.0 spec (the words “working draft” being a key here as it may still change at any point) has now been updated to reflect this, with the new appendix added called “Internet Media Type Registration” that documents both the subtype name “font-woff2” under “application” type, and the file extension “woff2”: http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/

Again , the appendix shows only a proposed text of the media type application, the actual application to IANA can only be submitted when the WOFF 2.0 specification is finalized.

From http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/:

Cc: @josh, @sergejmueller.

[sergejmueller]

Thanks for this summary. I updated my WOFF2 Gist.

[alrra]

As always, Blink/WebKit based browsers (currently it affects Chrome and Opera) will complain about the application/font-woff2 media type:

@paulirish, @mathiasbynens can any of you add "application/font-woff2": {"font": true},to the WebInspector.NetworkManager._MIMETypes object? Thanks!

[mathiasbynens]

Thanks @alrra! I’ve filed https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=391289 for this.

[alrra]

Thanks @mathiasbynens!

[sergejmueller]

[alrra]

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=391289

Status: Fixed 🎉