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

Conf. call reminder and agenda for Wed. Feb. 23

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:28:26 -0500
To: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D0B87269391@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
Hello WG,

We will have our regularly scheduled telcon tomorrow at:

US West Coast - 07:00

US East Coast - 10:00

Central Europe - 16:00

Japan - midnight

Zakim telephone bridge:

     +1.617.761.6200 (Boston) or

     + (Paris) or

     +44.203.318.0479 (London)

     with conference code 3668 ("FONT")

IRC channel is #webfonts, irc://irc.w3.org:6665/webfonts

or http://irc.w3.org/?channels=webfonts


-          Review the disposition of comments (http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html) , finalize the Last Call comments;

-          Decide on the way to go forward taking into account the recent discussion on SOR and CORS/FO mechanisms to relax it.

-          Review the remaining open action items: http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open

Items for consideration:
In an attempt to summarize the current status of the discussion on SOR and mechanisms to relax it, I would like to note that:

1)      We seem to have reach a consensus that "From Origin" proposal is a viable alternative to CORS, and can be used as a mechanism to either impose or relax origin restrictions, and it is something that can universally be used for all resource types on the web. One big concern of mine that the formal proposal and the future spec have not been even drafted yet, therefore it cannot be referenced in any way.

2)      We also seem to agree that applying origin restrictions is better be rule-specific (for @font-face) as opposed to resource type specific (WOFF), and , therefore, this should ideally be specified in CSS3 Fonts spec. However, this is the discussion that didn't happen yet in the CSS WG and the concern here is that we wouldn't want to remove the references to CORS and SOR from the WOFF spec at least until we have an agreed new home for it (most likely in CSS3).

3)      We reached the consensus on SOR and CORS when we prepared and published the First Public Working Draft (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Jun/0116.html), and its announcement was well received during the Typecon 2010 and ATypI conferences. The WG members did not raise any objections when the decision to advance the WD to the Last Call was made, and we did not receive LC comments on this subject. The WG recently did revisit this issue because the new considerations have been brought to WG attention; however, we did not reach the consensus yet, and the majority of group members seem to  prefer having same-origin restriction be a default that can either be relaxed using CORS (as already implemented by Firefox and IE9), or using "From Origin" headers in the future. From the process point of view, in order to avoid delaying the development of the WOFF specification and, at the same time, accommodating possible future changes, we can keep the existing normative text "as is" marking it as "at risk", and adding two editorial notes saying that:

- The WG is considering "From Origin" proposal as an alternative to CORS, and may introduce this change in the future when FO is spec'ed; and

- The WG believes that same-origin restriction should be link-specific and specified for fonts in general, therefore it belongs to the CSS3 spec and may be removed from the WOFF spec if and when the CSS WG reaches a consensus on this issue.

Marking some features "at risk" in the text of the CR would allow us to progress the document to the next step, and at the same time will offer an opportunity to remove marked features without reversing the specification and going through the second Last Call again. It also allows us to avoid the situation when we remove SOR and CORS as a normative requirement in WOFF spec before it is discussed and added somewhere else.

Thank you,
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2011 21:28:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:15 UTC