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

> Did you see that there is an [explainer](https://github.com/w3c/IFT/blob/main/Patch-Subset-Explainer.md) and that, in the Detailed Design Discussion section, two of the three sub-sections relate to the HTTP WG feedback?

Yes, I saw that some changes were made, and appreciate the effort. However, from a HTTP perspective this design is still not ready for standardization -- while it meets the needs of its proponents, it's use of HTTP doesn't take into account all aspects of the protocol, and I don't believe it will see good adoption, particularly by CDNs and other parties which would need to make substantial changes to their infrastructure to accommodate it. 

If I were still on the TAG, here are the questions I'd be asking:

* The explainer says 'Changes to the Open Font Format or OpenType specifications are out of scope.' Why? In particular, has anyone investigated whether doing so could address the issues with rendering subsets?
* The proposal defines what amounts to a new HTTP extension that's specific to Web fonts. Has it undergone sufficient review by the relevant communities, and is it likely to be deployed? 
* Could existing protocol mechanisms have been used without the need for a new HTTP extension? 
* Is this extension likely to see reasonable adoption across the Web?
* If new functionality is genuinely necessary, has it been designed in such a way as to allow generic use, so that other use cases can benefit -- thereby increasing deployment incentives?


-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/849#issuecomment-1676585226
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/849/1676585226@github.com>