Re: Please review performance aspects of Incremental Font Transfer

Hi Chris,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  We have put it on the 
agenda[1] for our next WebPerf WG call (July 7th)

[1] 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10dz_7QM5XCNsGeI63R864lF9gFqlqQD37B4q8Q46LMM/edit#

- Nic
https://nicj.net/
@NicJ

On 6/28/2022 8:23 AM, Chris Lilley wrote:
> The Web Fonts WG requests review of the Incremental Font Transfer 
> (IFT) specification by the Web Performance WG. A new WD of IFT was 
> published today [1]
>
> This specification defines two methods to incrementally transfer fonts 
> from server to client. Incremental transfer allows clients to load 
> only the portions of the font they actually need which speeds up font 
> loads and reduces data transfer needed to load the fonts. A font can 
> be loaded over multiple requests where each request incrementally adds 
> additional data.
>
> Earlier work [2] demonstrated the performance improvements n terms of 
> bytes transferred and reduced network delay, for various network types.
>
> The current work proposes a specific networking mechanism by which the 
> client and server can negotiate  which IFT method to use [3], and to 
> transfer requested subsets of the entire font [4][5]. We would 
> particularly value the review of the Web Performance WG on those 
> aspects, although review of the entire specification would of course 
> be most welcome.
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/2022/WD-IFT-20220628/
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/PFE-evaluation/
> [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/2022/WD-IFT-20220628/#method-selection
> [4] https://www.w3.org/TR/2022/WD-IFT-20220628/#extend-subset
> [5] 
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2022/WD-IFT-20220628/#browser-behaviors-subsequent-requests
>