W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > February 2011

Minutes, 9 Fen 2011 WebFonts WG call

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 22:52:05 +0100
Message-ID: <1584868827.20110209225205@w3.org>
To: 3668 FONT <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Hello,

 Minutes of todays call in html
http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-webfonts-minutes.html

and text

                 WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

09 Feb 2011

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-webfonts-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Vlad, Erik, Jonathan, Chris, Christopher, Sergey, Tal,
          sylvain

   Regrets
   Chair
          Vlad

   Scribe
          ChrisL

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Action Items
         2. [5]file format tests
         3. [6]same origin restriction
         4. [7]next calls
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 09 February 2011

   uh-oh, Zakim is confused

   <jfkthame> "this conference is restricted at this time" ?

   zakim thinks our booking is at the later time, 10pm france not 4pm
   france

   [9]http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20110209

      [9] http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20110209

   ok, zakim is not confused. the agenda was confused about which week
   this is

   <jfkthame> aha

   <jfkthame> ok, ttyl i guess!

   last week was the earlier time, but last week was also cancelled

   Vlad, see you in a few hours, then?

   <Vlad> Why is this happening?

   because this is a late week not an early week

   <Vlad> It shoes that our previous call (last week) has also been
   scheduled at 10 pm France

   <Vlad> Did we loose our altenate time schedule?

   no

   For 2 Feb I see

   15: 00-16:00Z

   IA_Fonts

   and for today I see

   21: 00-22:00Z

   IA_Fonts

   <Vlad> So, if Feb. 02 hae been 10 pm, ths week shoudl be 4 pm CET,
   right?

   <sylvaing> my calendar is definitely on for 7am PST

   <jfkthame> for 2 feb i see both times

   [10]http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D2011020
   9

     [10] http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20110209

   ah. yes, so do I

   <jfkthame> also both times for 16 feb and 23 feb

   <sylvaing> this is like some kind of quantum scheduling

   <sylvaing> meeting is in both states at the same time

   <jfkthame> or perhaps neither?

   <sylvaing> yes

   <jfkthame> it's a heisenmeeting

   I will need to talk to the admin staff to see what is happening

   <sylvaing> (insert Twilight Zone music)

   <sylvaing> (..and witty comment on the need for same-origin meeting
   time)

   <Vlad> So, what do we do for today? Do we reschedule for later or
   cancel until next week?

   I suggest reschedule for later

   <sylvaing> but then what is meeting time next week ?

   <Vlad> Okay, I will send a notice to WG list

   looking at the calendar over a longer period, it looks as if the
   later call has been scheduled weekly (despite what the booking says)
   and the earlier call every two weeks

   I willtalk to the admin staff and get it sorted out

   <sylvaing> all right. so talk again in 6 hours today ?

   yup

   in my personal calendar today was an early week, and it was set like
   that months ago

   <sylvaing> same here

   <Vlad> I just sent a msg to the WG list announcing the change for
   today, hope you guys can make it.

   <Vlad> Check the email

   trackbot, start telcon

   <trackbot> Meeting: WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

   <trackbot> Date: 09 February 2011

   oh yes it has, Zakim

   <jfkthame> is zakim not paying attention to the phone today?

   actions at [11]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open

     [11] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open

   <scribe> ScribeNick: ChrisL

Action Items

   action-29?

   <trackbot> ACTION-29 -- John Hudson to review woff faq with chris
   and vlad -- due 2010-10-06 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/29

     [12] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/29

   Vlad: John sent in some good text, i made some comments

   ChrisL: plan to add the text that John sent in, we can always
   further revise later

   close action-29

   <trackbot> ACTION-29 Review woff faq with chris and vlad closed

   <scribe> ACTION: chris to edit WOFF faq with Johns text
   incorporating Vlad's corrections [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Edit WOFF faq with Johns text
   incorporating Vlad's corrections [on Chris Lilley - due 2011-02-16].

   action-48?

   <trackbot> ACTION-48 -- Tal Leming to create UA test for bad
   metadata -- due 2010-11-24 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/48

     [14] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/48

   close action-48

   <trackbot> ACTION-48 Create UA test for bad metadata closed

   close action-49

   <trackbot> ACTION-49 Update UA test plan to include new "fringe"
   tests. closed

   close action-50

   <trackbot> ACTION-50 Update font format test plan to include new
   "fringe" tests. closed

   Tal: I did those

   action-52?

   <trackbot> ACTION-52 -- Chris Lilley to respond to erik muller on
   pronunciation and sorting -- due 2010-12-08 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/52

     [15] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/52

   ChrisL: not done yet

   action-57?

   <trackbot> ACTION-57 -- Jonathan Kew to respons on issue-14 -- due
   2011-01-26 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/57

     [16] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/57

   jfkthame: still working on that one

   Vlad: direction attributes inside element. But issue is text in
   attributes
   ... so our conclusion was that font vendor names don't need directin
   attributes anyway

   jfkthame: direction applies to the attribute, the only thing you
   can't do ia add markup in attributes. We agreed to add direction to
   all elements

   Vlad: and direction can be based on Unicode rules, for simple text
   ... Chris and Richard discussed but there was no conclusion

   ChrisL: need to propose a solution to Richard and see what he says

   action-58?

   <trackbot> ACTION-58 -- Tal Leming to revise test cases to allow
   multiple credit elements -- due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/58

     [17] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/58

   action-59?

   <trackbot> ACTION-59 -- Chris Lilley to respond to I18n-ISSUE-2 --
   due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [18]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/59

     [18] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/59

   Chris: that one is easy, will do soon

   action-60>

   action-61?

   <trackbot> ACTION-61 -- Chris Lilley to provide samples and respond
   to I18n -- due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/61

     [19] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/61

   ChrisL: ok so this is the div and span one
   ... 62 is waiting for action-61

   action-64?

   <trackbot> ACTION-64 -- Jonathan Kew to remove normative statements
   from introduction to new section 'General Requirements' -- due
   2011-01-26 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/64

     [20] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/64

   jfkthame: done today

   close action-64

   <trackbot> ACTION-64 Remove normative statements from introduction
   to new section 'General Requirements' closed

   [21]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/webfonts/WOFF/spec/Overview.html

     [21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/webfonts/WOFF/spec/Overview.html

   close action-64

   <trackbot> ACTION-64 Remove normative statements from introduction
   to new section 'General Requirements' closed

   close action-66

   <trackbot> ACTION-66 Edit spec 'this element may be localised'
   replaced 'this element may be localised using text child element'
   closed

   close action-67

   <trackbot> ACTION-67 Edit section 6, past paragraph: 'at least one
   text sub element' replaced by 'at least one text child element'.
   closed

   close action-68

   <trackbot> ACTION-68 General replacement: 'sub elements' to 'child
   elements' closed

   close action-70

   <trackbot> ACTION-70 Replace last sentence of section 7: End of
   Private Data block must correspond with the end of the last file.
   closed

   close action-71

   <trackbot> ACTION-71 Clarify Bert Bos' Point 4 closed

   close action-72

   <trackbot> ACTION-72 Respond to Bert Bos' Point 5. closed

   ChrisL: still need to update disposition of comments document for
   these emails
   ... szilles accepted the comments that were sent

   action chrisl to update disposition of comments

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-74 - Update disposition of comments [on
   Chris Lilley - due 2011-02-16].

file format tests

   tal: blanket 'is file valid' is not very good for debugging. many
   reasons for invalidity
   ... looking for a machine readable fault report
   ... to be linked to
   ... other than that, these are straightforward
   ... will work on authoring tool tests next. Not clear on best
   structure
   ... can give sfnt, xml and private then validate the output
   ... lots of things the spec says about padding, but rhe compression
   variability makes it hard to ensure they do the right thing

   Vlad: we should review the format tests

   tal: yes, though after spec updates are done

   ChrisL: (explains last call exit and cr entrance policy in process)

same origin restriction

   Vlad: we don't have an official comment but we do have two
   implementors who say they won't implement
   ... so is this a last call comment or not
   ... better to sort it out before entering CR

   ChrisL: agreed

   Vlad: other opinions?
   ... Hakon made a proposal in email

   cslye: agree with Vlad, need a more pointed discussion. currently we
   have implementors saying they will ignore it if its in the spec
   ... process is to get consensus first. we should resolve it

   Vlad: so we have IE9 and Frefox who implemented it and Chrome may
   (Tab is not against)

   sylvain: lets see when they check it in
   ... need to split the mechanics from whether its a requirement or
   not
   ... do we feel some form of SOR is required or not
   ... several ways to solve it

   Vlad: yes we need to solve this and get it behind us

   cslye: dave singer said he would get back to us

   Vlad: Maciej joined the WG recently, so its good to see further
   active participation from Apple

   sylvaing: opera have not closed the door, they made a counter
   prooposal and are still talking

   Vlad: (checks charter for specific mentionof SOR)

   sylvaing: IE9 will ship with current solution, so even if we change
   later we have that to deal with

   "This specification will reference the font formats in existing use
   (OpenType, WOFF, SVG, and EOT), the font referencing and linking
   specifications (in both CSS and XML serialisations), access policies
   such as same-origin and CORS, and define which linking mechanisms,
   policies and formats are required for compliance."

   sylvaing: we also depend on CORS which is not a Rec. Even worse if
   we depend on a new thing not even FPWD yet

   ChrisL: gan go to PR then holding pattern for Rec.
   ... or put conformance in a separate spec

   sylvaing: not want the format to be held back

   Vlad: sooner the better

next calls

   ChrisL: Zakim booking is correct again, same pattern as previously

   Vlad: next telcon will be dedicated to the CORs/SOR issue
   ... some regrets in March due to travel

   ChrisL: same for me first week of March

   <cslye> I can't do Mar 2 either, FWIW.

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: chris to edit WOFF faq with Johns text incorporating
   Vlad's corrections [recorded in
   [22]http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]

-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2011 21:55:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 February 2011 21:55:09 GMT