Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Incremental Font Transfer: Patch Subset (Issue #849)

Hi @hober thanks for the clarification of the WebKit position. @LeaVerou asked me to edit the explainer to link to published positions rather than rely on telcon and github discussions, which I am happy to do. Is there a link to the WebKit position? I will ask Firefox and Chromium for their official positions too, if they have published them.

I would welcome further clarification from @litherum because it has been [a while](https://www.w3.org/2022/03/08-webfonts-minutes.html) since they attended a Fonts WG call. My understanding was that they argued that range request was _needed_ because it can use a regular HTTP server rather than a special purpose one; but also that they accepted that the performance of range request was [significantly worse](https://www.w3.org/TR/PFE-evaluation/#conclusions) on fast networks and [terrible](https://www.w3.org/TR/PFE-evaluation/#analysis-cjk-cost) (10x worse than a static subsetted font, on 2G) on slow ones, and also broke HTTP caching as the HTTP WG pointed out.

In other words my understanding was that @litherum regretted the need for a specialized server, but understood that especially for the CJK market which currently has near-zero webfont deployment, patch subset was the _only_ viable solution.

Meanwhile please pause this TAG review while we clarify stakeholder interest.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/849#issuecomment-1665962706
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/849/1665962706@github.com>