W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > June 2010

[public-webfonts-wg] <none>

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:31:47 +0200
Message-ID: <92637491.20100616173147@w3.org>
To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Hello public-webfonts-wg,

Minutes from todays call at

and below as text.

                 WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

16 Jun 2010

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-webfonts-irc


          +1.781.970.aaaa, +1.443.895.aabb, +1.510.816.aacc,
          +1.425.882.aadd, +1.250.668.aaee, +1.206.324.aaff, jdaggett,
          cslye, +47.21.65.aagg, ChrisL, +31.70.360.aahh,




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]extension mechanisms
         2. [5]f2f
         3. [6]metadata extensions
     * [7]Summary of Action Items

   <erik_> trying to connect

   <erik_> still wrestling with phone, it hangs up after entering the
   access code.

   <jfkthame> it seems like it's just not hearing me enter the code

   <sylvaing> to attach your phone number:

      [8] http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/info/name.php3

   <jfkthame> it asks again, and then just hangs up

   <jdaggett> csyle: using the format "zxxx, xxx is c

   <jdaggett> cslye: you're the only 510 number, right?

   <cslye> That's correct.

   <cslye> So, let me try this...

   <erik_> unable to connect - same here.

   <erik_> star / zero doesn't go anywhere either.

   <sylvaing> trackbot-ng, start telcon

   <trackbot> Date: 16 June 2010

   <cslye> Vlad: Should we discuss origin restrictions or metadata


      [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Jun/0092.html

   <erik_> despite repeated tries, I'm unable to connect

   <jfkthame> also unable to connect - i can watch the irc channel but
   no phone connection

   <sylvaing> 1) there is no security benefit here.

   I can connect via the US number. France number seems unable to
   accept touch tones

   <erik_> trying

   <sylvaing> 2) same-origin is not defined in HTML5 but in CORS. CORS
   depends on HTML5 for the definition of origin and origin matching

   <cslye> I connected to the Boston number with no problem, fwiw.

   <sylvaing> not opposed

   <erik_> I could connect via the uS number

   Anne (CORS editor) opposes using CORS for WOFF

   Howcome: is same-origin for WOFF or for other formats?

   <sylvaing> Font vendors do not want to license raw fonts so that
   shouldn't be an issue

   <sylvaing> at least for some time

   <cslye> I think the point is that WOFF is a "protected" format and
   deserves the mild protection it gets from same-origin, whereas "raw"
   fonts don't need it.

   howcome, you mentioned a range of opinions in Opera - what are the

   howcome: others say its good, for example to save bandwidth

   <cslye> When we refer to the "security" argument, we mean attacks
   and such, as opposed to theft?

   <sylvaing> cslye: yes

   <sylvaing> notes that TypeKit et al. rely on cross domain font
   access so the licensing benefit depends on who the vendor is

   <jdaggett> typekit uses data urls

   <jdaggett> i.e. they are not affected by this

   <sylvaing> jdaggett: for Firefox, yes

   <cslye> I think Typekit delivers EOT files for IE, though.

   <erik_> this is the license FSI links to in their current WOFF

     [10] http://www.fontfont.com/eula/license_webfonts_v_1_0.html

   <sylvaing> jdaggett: there still are other browsers :) and other
   font providers who link across domain e.g. ascender

   2.3. Font Software File Protection. You must ensure, by applying
   reasonable state-of-the-art measures, that other websites cannot
   access the Font Software for display (e. g. by preventing hotlinking
   and blocking direct access to the Font Software via .htaccess or
   other web server configurations).


     [11] http://www.fontshop.com/help/licenses/fontfont/

   <jdaggett> sure

   sg: if browsers do this, font vendors are willing in return to
   llosen their licenses

   <cslye> Not just loosen their license, but would be more inclined to
   offer web font licenses in the first place.

   erik: makes it much easier for us certainly

   <erik_> (that's erik, not Erik0

   erik: current licensing is in flux and depends on how WOFF spec ends

   <Vlad> installing adequate technical protection measures that
   restrict the use and/or access to the Font Software and/or
   Derivative Works, for instance by binding an EOT font to the
   Licensed Websites, utilizing JavaScript or access control mechanism
   for cross-origin resource sharing and/or protecting a sIFR Flash
   file against use on other websites than Licensed Websites by
   restricting domain access only to Licensed Websites.

   <cslye> :)

   vlad: monotype license encourages woff usage

   sylvaing: generaly positive on same-origin

   howcome: abstain

   <cslye> Does anyone explicitly object to requiring access control?

   resolution: same-origin restriction is mandatory for WOFF. modulo
   editorial changes discussed on the list

extension mechanisms


   <cslye> I agree.

   vlad: majority favour a f2f at typecon in LA

   chris: will try, but CSS in Oslo next day, also affects howcome,
   jdagett and sylvaing

   <cslye> My concern with ATypI is that it's closer to TPAC. (Also
   more difficult for me personally.)

   vlad: dublin atypi

   john: can't do dublin

   cslye: cant do dublin

   (sep 9-12)

   <sylvaing> will be at TPAC

   howcome: do we need a physical f2f?

   <erik_> [12]http://atypi.org/03_Dublin

     [12] http://atypi.org/03_Dublin

   vlad: seen as desirable

   <erik_> [13]http://www.typecon.com/

     [13] http://www.typecon.com/

   <cslye> It's possible for me -- but travel budget makes it

   sylvaing: is there enough of an agenda to justify travel?

   <sylvaing> if people find themselves in the same spot, they can
   certainly meet

   vlad: colocating would capitalize on existing travel

   chris: can do call-in using a bridge

   cslye: travel restrictions - good to have the WG there. How can we
   entice people?

   vlad: everyone plese restate their travel plans including existing

   <jdaggett> would love to come to typecon but with another meeting
   directly following it, that's tricky

   <sylvaing> same as jdaggett even though it's fewer miles for me

   chris: some of tpac will be spent in liaison

   <tiro_j> I will be at TypeCon, but not at ATypI, posibly at TPAC

   vlad: we asked for no overlap with css, can we reschedule?

   <sylvaing> overlap with CSS would be quite unhelpful for 4+ of us

   <scribe> ACTION: chris ask tpac organisers to reschedule webfonts to
   thur/fri at tpac [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Ask tpac organisers to reschedule
   webfonts to thur/fri at tpac [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-06-23].

metadata extensions

   vlad: from discussions so far, etadata as specified in draft seems
   near consensus. number and type of elements is ok for font vendors
   ... implementors said it was ok even though optional
   ... so we can state consensus on the existing set of standard
   metadata elements
   ... so then we can discuss extension mechanism only

   (no objections)

   howcome: not sure
   ... want to see a complete proposal

   vlad: can modify for good reason after fpwd

   <sylvaing> doesn't know either but acknowledges that what we have is
   already being used. that's important

   vlad: simple key-value is proposed for extensions
   ... localisation is important, tried to be impartial in summary,
   hope that was clear. but speaking for monotype, opinion is that the
   solution form jonathan kew was the best one
   ... sergei commented to say it was simple to implement, one pass

   sergeym: yes

   vlad: duplication should not cause significant size increase as it
   compresses well

   howcome: difficult to discuss now, propose to delay all metadayta
   out of 1.0

   vlad: including the standard metadata?

   <cslye> Wouldn't that just create a lot of ad hoc metadata in
   shipping WOFFs?

   tal: strongly object, that is the basis we got people to sign on,
   removing it would be insulting

   vlad: so please respond on email

   <sylvaing> we could keep what we have and postpone extensibility. I
   think this is what Hakon is saying ?

   howcome: yes. just t eh extensibility

   sylvaing: document what is used now
   ... extensibility comes later
   ... now one is using extensibility right now
   ... so drive to LC, CR. Extend once we have actual requirements

   howcome: ok with that

   sylvaing: do we want to delay for uncertain extensibility?

   vlad: if its in fpwd theyn we get feedback and can take it out if

   <cslye> If we want to get use cases for extended metadata for 1.0,
   we might get that out of TypeCon and ATypI conversations.

   sylvaing: bar metadata, what other issues do we have?

   vblad: not many

   howcome: so lets get fpwd soon

   vlad: want to have a solution that many of us can live with. if its
   in the fpwd we can ask for comments. if its not in the draft we
   can't get comments

   sylvaing: ok lets get it out there

   sergeym: font vendors unlikely to want to remove the extensibility

   cslye; any objection to put it in current draft?

   sylvaing: current draft represents what is out there

   Vlad: better to have an extension proposal for people to discuss

   john: put extensibility as a separate item?

   chris: putting in extensibility and deleting later if needed is
   better from a patent policy point of view

   vlad: lets use next couple of weeks to try to get agreement here.
   only half a page or so anyway

   <jdaggett> history has been made...

   howcome: i am willing to let microsoft cast my vote here

   resolved: fpwd in a couple of weeks with whatever we have consensus

   <scribe> scribe: chris

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: chris ask tpac organisers to reschedule webfonts to
   thur/fri at tpac [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 15:32:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 June 2010 15:32:55 GMT