woff2 in v3.3.2

[skinnybrit51]

After downloading version 3.3.2 of bootstrap I noticed that if you using latest chrome or ff browser woff2 fonts are used. This is causing a problem for our application stack. The s3 bucket where our deployed client code lives is pushed from a travis build. The travis build is unable to determine the MIME type for woff2. Ruby MIME Types

Is there any real need to include woff2 as at the moment it is still in draft?

[cvrebert]

Sounds more like a bug in your MIME type library, no?

[skinnybrit51]

I partially agree with that. My counter argument would be that other library's might not want to support draft functionality.

[kkirsche]

The correct mime type for WOFF 2.0 files is hard to determine but from what I've seen:

Google uses font/woff2

W3C recommends application/font-woff2

NGINX: WOFF2 mime type

types {
    application/font-woff2  woff2;
}

APACHE: WOFF2 mime type

AddType  application/font-woff2  .woff2

[mansam]

The correct mime type for WOFF 2.0 is hard to determine because no proposal has been accepted by IANA yet as far as I know.

[cvrebert]

@mdo Any thoughts here?

[cvrebert]

@kkirsche Google uses font/woff2

Where? Example?

[coliff]

@cvrebert Info re: 'Google uses font/woff2' and other interesting stuff on this Gist here:
https://gist.github.com/sergejmueller/cf6b4f2133bcb3e2f64a

[cvrebert]

Sadly, that Gist doesn't actually give an example of where Google uses it. Given when that Gist was created, it's entirely possible that that portion of it is outdated.

[coliff]

Ok, go to http://www.google.com/fonts/ and view the Network Inspector in Google Chrome and you'll see type: font/woff2. Google use that type for all Google-hosted fonts.

I use WOFF2 fonts on my IIS 7 server but the type shows there as: application/font-woff2

[cvrebert]

Hmm, indeed. Let's see if they'll fix that: https://twitter.com/cvrebert/status/570155277648924672

[kkirsche]

Thanks for linking to that @coliff as that's where I was going

[cvrebert]

All my research says to use application/font-woff2 and that that's going to be the final registered MIME type:

• http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#IMT
• http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2014Jun/0025.html
• https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=391289
• Add configs for WOFF 2.0 font files h5bp/server-configs-apache#32

application/font-woff2 works fine in Chrome (indeed, "Chrome itself doesn't require any particular mimetype."), and Blink is currently the only rendering engine where WOFF2 is supported without having to toggle any feature flags.

---

So IMHO, there's no serious doubt about the de facto or de jure correct MIME type here. And Bootstrap generally tends not to care about such server-side considerations anyway.

So I think that just leaves the matter of "Should we include support for a font format whose standard isn't yet finalized"? I'm personally in favor of simply deferring to our upstream (Glyphicons) and trusting their judgment; they've apparently chosen to include WOFF2.
Just to give some other data points: Font Awesome, Google Fonts, and MediaWiki use/support WOFF2.

---

CC: @twbs/team so we can make a final up-or-down decision here.

[mdo]

I'm fine leaving the WOFF2 in there if it's not causing any harm and makes us a bit more future-friendly.

[XhmikosR]

It is still a little bit early for woff2 but being that we just follow upstream, I'm OK with including it too. MIME types isn't something we need to care IMO.

[cvrebert]

Closing this then.