W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-font@w3.org > July to September 2010

Minutes, 4 August WebFonts WG telcon

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 23:03:07 +0200
Message-ID: <1676956452.20100804230307@w3.org>
To: www-font@w3.org
Hello www-font,

 http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html

or below as text

                 WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

04 Aug 2010

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Aug/0010.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Vlad, sylvaing, ChrisL, +31.18.768.aaaa, Erik, tal, John,
          Sergei, jdaggett, +1.416.589.aabb, Dave, cslye

   Regrets
          Christopher

   Chair
          Vlad

   Scribe
          ChrisL

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Review the first public working draft
         2. [6]Typecon 2010:
         3. [7]Planning of the F2F meeting.
         4. [8]WOFF publicity/promotion at Typecon
         5. [9]review spec for conformance and testable assertions
         6. [10]aob
     * [11]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 04 August 2010

   <scribe> Scribe: ChrisL

Review the first public working draft

   Vlad: Thanks jdaggett for reviewing the spec

   [12]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2010JulSep/0027.htm
   l

     [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2010JulSep/0027.html

   jdaggett: most of these are editorial
   ... two major things
   ... section 8 conformance, checksum must be correct, implication is
   that checksum is computed and checked,
   ... must either correct the values or issue a warning
   ... need to be consistent, reject or warn?
   ... many checks need to happen but that is not part of woff, hapens
   once a font is converted

   sergeym: validating a checksum is an additional step

   jdaggett: not clear if we can reuse the header checksum or required
   to recompute it

   sergeym: UA does not change table structure
   ... so the checksum is still valid

   jdaggett: wording says the tool should validate it

   Vlad: sergeym seems to be agreeing that checksum validation should
   not be required of UA

   resolved: UAS need not validate checksums

   <scribe> ACTION: jjonathan to clarify that checksums are not checked
   by a user agent [recorded in
   [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jjonathan

   <scribe> ACTION: jjonothan to clarify that checksums are not checked
   by a user agent [recorded in
   [14]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jjonothan

   <scribe> ACTION: jonothan to clarify that checksums are not checked
   by a user agent [recorded in
   [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html#action03]

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jonothan

   <scribe> ACTION: jonathan to clarify that checksums are not checked
   by a user agent [recorded in
   [16]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html#action04]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Clarify that checksums are not
   checked by a user agent [on Jonathan Kew - due 2010-08-11].

   jdaggett: better to move the conformance requirenents into section
   8, list for tools and user agents

   Vlad: yes appendices should be informative so notrmative text should
   be moved out of there
   ... of if it looks normative bit isnt it should be reworded

   jdaggett: structural issue, repeating similar ideas in 2 parts of a
   document they get out of sync over time
   ... woff processor, not defined

   ChrisL: agree, if it means UA

   jdaggett: no need to define for other than a user agent?

   ChrisL: not authoring tools?

   Vlad: encoder and decoder need to understad the same format

   jdaggett: should not say UA one place and woff processor other
   places

   Vlad: in general agree, but slightly broader scope. Used by tool
   creators for creation and consumption

   <John> Could we have a general term such as 'WOFF client'

   ChrisL: as an example a woff validator could say if the checksums
   are wrong, even though a ua is not required to check them

   sylvaing: need to clearly distinguish encoders and decoders.
   processor could apply to both

   jdaggett: agree that sizes should be specified in bytes for example.
   trivial to add

   ChrisL: should say that WOFF stands for web open fornt format

   Vlad: another comment from Eric Muller partly addressed by
   jdaggett's edits

   ChrisL: all of Bobs concerns seemed to be addressed by John

   Vlad: there was a concern about padding that follows the last table
   so is not between tables

   <Vlad>
   [17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2010JulSep/0030.htm
   l

     [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2010JulSep/0030.html

   jdaggett: current spec does not completely address it
   ... under overal lfile structure in section 2, (quotes) no
   extraneous data outside tha table. its too vague.
   ... proposed wording, bob replied it would allow data after the last
   table
   ... make change to disallow extraneous data outside the font
   ... should UAs load a font that has gaps that are more than padding

   Vlad: think the spec already says this

   jdaggett: should be in conformance requirements
   ... change 'between font tables' to include before and after tables
   too

   <scribe> ACTION: jonothan t change conformance rwquirements to
   disallow extraneous data anywhere and require ua to reject a font
   contasining it [recorded in
   [18]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html#action05]

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - jonothan

   <scribe> ACTION: jonathan t change conformance rwquirements to
   disallow extraneous data anywhere and require ua to reject a font
   contasining it [recorded in
   [19]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html#action06]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - T change conformance rwquirements to
   disallow extraneous data anywhere and require ua to reject a font
   contasining it [on Jonathan Kew - due 2010-08-11].

   Vlad: Eric Muller comments I responded to

   ChrisL: surprised by Eric's comments

   jdaggett: he seemed to say that everything should be in OT tables
   (or an extension)

   cslye: he said that metadata that is not woff specific should be
   inside the fotnt; talked with him about that
   ... in private discussion

   Vlad: wanted to respond to his comments right away

Typecon 2010:

   Vlad: its in 2 weeks
   ... john suggested woff presentations better done by tal and erik
   ... program lists john as the speaker there

   erik: agreed

   Vlad: please draft something for the group to discuss

   erik: will post over the next week

   Vlad: important to get the message across, what woff does and what
   it is for
   ... also ChrisL can you do the wg part?

   ChrisL: yes sure
   ... need to tell Tamye about that and check its ok?

   cslye: no its ok, the panel discussion is more tightly managed. wg
   slot is fairly open

   ChrisL: so who is on the panel?

   cslye: panel is brian mason, cslyye (reads from program)

   <cslye> TypeCon webfonts panel discussion: Participants include
   Bryan Mason, moderator (Typekit), Christopher Slye (Adobe), Bill
   Davis (Ascender), Tom Phinney (Extensis), Adam Twardoch (FontLab),
   Raph Levien (Google), Erik van Blokland (LettError), Simon Daniels
   (Microsoft), Vladimir Levantovsky (Monotype Imaging), John Hudson
   (Tiro Typeworks), Tal Leming (Type Supply), and more.

   John: make sense for ChrisL to be on panel for w3c questions

   [20]http://www.typecon.com/program.php

     [20] http://www.typecon.com/program.php

   sylvaing: session is on friday? and wg meeting tues?

   John: yes and css3 on weds
   .woff party friday night

Planning of the F2F meeting.

   Vlad: be ready to discuss conformance requirements and testable
   assertions
   ... will get more details on location. 10-6pm is the time. will get
   room details

WOFF publicity/promotion at Typecon

   (discussion about publicity)

review spec for conformance and testable assertions

   ChrisL: related my experience on defining 'lossless; wrt PNG spec,
   might apply to WOFF too

   Vlad: fringe cases may need some adjustments

aob

   erik: doing experiments with xslt to render the metadata

   Vlad: may be useful as informative appendix. jkew said not in spec
   but can be handy to make available

   ChrisL: its more illustrative
   ... erik please post a link

   erik: sure

   vlad: anything else?

   adjourned

Summary of Action Items

 
   [NEW] ACTION: jonathan t change conformance rwquirements to disallow
   extraneous data anywhere and require ua to reject a font contasining
   it [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html#action06]
   [NEW] ACTION: jonathan to clarify that checksums are not checked by
   a user agent [recorded in
   [24]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html#action04]
   [NEW] ACTION: jonothan t change conformance rwquirements to disallow
   extraneous data anywhere and require ua to reject a font contasining
   it [recorded in
   [25]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html#action05]
   [NEW] ACTION: jonothan to clarify that checksums are not checked by
   a user agent [recorded in
   [26]http://www.w3.org/2010/08/04-webfonts-minutes.html#action03]

   [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, 4 August 2010 21:03:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:42 UTC