fix matcher for woff & woff2 #70
Conversation
| && buf[4] == 0x00 | ||
| && buf[5] == 0x01 | ||
| && buf[6] == 0x00 | ||
| && buf[7] == 0x00 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be the difference between TrueType(0x00010000) and OTF(OTTO, 0x4F54544F)
https://github.com/junmer/is-woff/blob/f66b0846497788bbb6d8f78e2d07106919232089/index.js#L9-L27
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF/#WOFFHeader
The flavor field corresponds to the "sfnt version" field found at the beginning of an sfnt file, indicating the type of font data contained. Although only fonts of type 0x00010000 (the version number 1.0 as a 16.16 fixed-point value, indicating TrueType glyph data) and 0x4F54544F (the tag 'OTTO', indicating CFF glyph data) are widely supported at present, it is not an error in the WOFF file if the flavor field contains a different value, indicating a WOFF-packaged version of a different sfnt flavor. (The value 0x74727565 'true' has been used for some TrueType-flavored fonts on Mac OS, for example.) Whether client software will actually support other types of sfnt font data is outside the scope of the WOFF specification, which simply describes how the sfnt is repackaged for Web use.
| && buf[5] == 0x01 | ||
| && buf[6] == 0x00 | ||
| && buf[7] == 0x00 | ||
| buf.len() > 3 && buf[0] == 0x77 && buf[1] == 0x4F && buf[2] == 0x46 && buf[3] == 0x46 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please keep the line break for better diff.
This allows more woff/woff2 file to be recognized. fixes #67