W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > June 2012

RE: Minutes, 30 May WebFonts WG call

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 19:43:28 +0000
To: Sergey Malkin <sergeym@microsoft.com>, WOFF Working Group <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79E5B05BFEBAF5418BCB714B43F441991F9C70@wob-mail-01>
Thank you, Sergei. Trying to translate it into CTS terms - does it mean that IE10 passes this test as is?

Thanks,
Vlad


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Malkin [mailto:sergeym@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 2:08 PM
> To: WOFF Working Group
> Subject: RE: Minutes, 30 May WebFonts WG call
> 
> Hello everybody,
> 
> IE10 requires padding after last table ( this applies to both unpacked
> SFNT and WOFF file even if there is no metadata and private data after
> it).
> 
> Thanks,
> Sergey
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 7:56 AM
> To: WOFF Working Group
> Subject: Minutes, 30 May WebFonts WG call
> 
> Hello ,
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-webfonts-minutes.html
> 
> and below as text for tracker
> 
> 
>                  WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
> 
> 30 May 2012
> 
>    See also: [2]IRC log
> 
>       [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-webfonts-irc
> 
> Attendees
> 
>    Present
>           ChrisL, +1.410.370.aaaa, +44.845.397.aabb,
>           +1.510.816.aacc, +1.781.970.aadd, tal, jfkthame,
>           Christopher, Vlad
> 
>    Regrets
>    Chair
>           Vlad
> 
>    Scribe
>           ChrisL2
> 
> Contents
> 
>      * [3]Topics
>          1. [4]new proposed charter
>      * [5]Summary of Action Items
>      __________________________________________________________
> 
>    <trackbot> Date: 30 May 2012
> 
>    <scribe> Scribe: ChrisL2
> 
>    Vlad: Chris sent email to a draft charter today
> 
>    ChrisL2: lets do that after the woff 1.0 item
> 
>    Vlad: Sylvain says IE10 builds should pass all the test cases
>    ... if that is the case then we have two implementations,
>    validator is the second one
>    ... found a minor inconsistency. Section 5 padding requirement
>    says tables must begin on 4 byte boundaries and be zero padded.
>    ... however metadata section says that, as its optional, must
>    follow immediately the last font table which is expected to be
>    zero padded. if its the last block there should be no
>    additional padding
>    ... private data says it must be last, begin on 4 byte
>    boundary, (so expressed as a tool requirement) and no
>    requirement on padding at the end
>    ... so for any block, if its the last one, no need to pad. To
>    be consistent
>    ... and test case becomes invalid
> 
>    tal: changing that will break the implementations that are
>    passing
> 
>    ChrisL2: OT spec end padding is optional
> 
>    Vlad: OT says padding is 'strongly recommended' not a must
> 
>    tal: found the bug in fonttools. long discussion with Just van
>    Rossum. Spec is very vasgue and contradictory
>    ... would need to look through emails from 5 years ago to check
> 
>    Vlad: (quotes from spec) "highly recommended"
> 
>    tal: is it worth breaking the passing implementations by
>    changing this
>    ... so making padding on last table optional if there is no
>    meta and no private
> 
>    [6]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/tests/UserAgent/Tests/xhtml1
>    /testcaseindex.xht#directory-4-byte-002
> 
>       [6]
> http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/tests/UserAgent/Tests/xhtml1/testcasein
> dex.xht#directory-4-byte-002
> 
>    [7]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/#conform-tablesize-long
>    word
> 
>       [7] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/#conform-tablesize-
> longword
> 
>    tal: changes in the authoring and validator tests as well
> 
>    ChrisL2: opera, webkit and firefox all fail this while IE10
>    might pass it (and the validator does so)
> 
>    tal: odd to change the spec because one font is badly made
> 
>    jfkthame: have the OT sanitiser folks said thwey would refuse a
>    patch that fixes it for woff and does not change anything for
>    OT?
> 
>    (we don't know)
> 
>    tal: don't mind changing it but we discussed a long time ago
> 
>    jfkthame: spec as originally drafted only required padding if
>    there was something following
>    ... then we changed it in the font tables so padding always
>    happens
>    ... discrepancies in behaviour either way
> 
>    cslye: why did we write that tools needed padding at the end
>    table?
> 
>    tal: found that bug in fonttools
>    ... due to differing interpretations of OT spec
> 
>    jfkthame: it came from the definition of a well formed sfnt
>    that was round trippable
> 
>    ChrisL2: yes that is right
> 
>    tal: and we were trying to make it good data coming in
> 
>    jfkthame; and that is what other tools seem to be converging on
> 
>    (we really need some representation from Microsoft to comment
>    authoritatively on IE10)
> 
>    jfkthame: would be happy to write the patch for OTS but it
>    might not be accepted upstream
>    ... could do it as a firefox patch but prefer to see it adopted
>    upstream
> 
>    tal: is there any indication to OTS where the font came from?
> 
>    jfkthame: yes
> 
>    (commercial break - a word from our sponsors)
> 
>    (we fail to contact Sylvain)
> 
>    Vlad: consistency of implementation is the most important thing
> 
>    ChrisL2; we can't make a decision withouthard data o what IE10
>    does
> 
>    (decision deferred to next week)
> 
>    (discussion on who the OTS maintainers are)
> 
>    jfkthame: adam langley, but half a dozen other folks also
>    involved
> 
> new proposed charter
> 
>    [8]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2012M
>    ay/0002.html
> 
>       [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-
> wg/2012May/0002.html
> 
>    <Vlad> [9]http://www.w3.org/2012/05/WebFonts/draft-charter.html
> 
>       [9] http://www.w3.org/2012/05/WebFonts/draft-charter.html
> 
>    ChrisL2: there is a risk of old vs new implementations
> 
>    Vlad: mainly heard positive opinions, mainly because of asian
>    font size. Android also interested, for mobile
>    ... bandwidth on mobile still expensive
> 
>    jfkthame: draft says it adds new method
>    ... should the deliverable be to "do" it or to "evaluate it,
>    and do it if it evaluates well"
>    ... how does it compare to optimising structure and then
>    applying woff 1.0?
> 
>    Vlad: optimisation also gets rid of data that can be
>    reconstructed. so woff does not have the reconstruction phase
>    ... loca, bounding box data can be reconstructed on the fly
> 
>    tal: better to break the proposal into two parts, optmisation
>    and compression
>    ... and measure where the benefits come from
> 
>    Vlad; google did that and presented their findings, repository
>    of code and sample fonts , fine grained report on where the
>    benefits come from
> 
>    scribe: optimisations give 15-30%, lzma givea an additional 30%
>    over gzip
>    ... depends on what can be optimised, unhinted vs hinted, size
>    of original font etc
>    ... data from Google is from around a thousand Google webfonts
> 
>    ChrisL2: suggestion to evaluate and then maybe do it. is a good
>    one
> 
>    (general agreement)
> 
>    (adjourned)
> 
> Summary of Action Items
> 
>    [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 Friday, 1 June 2012 19:43:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 June 2012 19:43:56 GMT