Add support for all WOFF/WOFF2 flavors (Alternative to #118) #117
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
smasty
changed the title
h2non
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 19, 2022
Add support for more WOFF/WOFF2 flavors (Alternative to #117)
Owner
|
Closing in favor of #118. Thank you! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi, according to the WOFF File Format 1.0 and WOFF File Format 2.0 specifications,
Thus I'm proposing to remove the check for the
0x00010000flavor from the WOFF and WOFF2 matchers. This would ensure that files of other WOFF flavors (like the common one embedding CFF glyphs/OpenType) would be correctly identified by this library.Alternatively, if allowing arbitrary flavors seems too loose to you., I also prepared a PR that allows the three most common flavors that are also mentioned in the format specification: #118