TypeCon Presentation Draft

Hi Everyone,

Below is the current rough draft that Erik and I have put together for the WOFF presentation at TypeCon. Please let us know what you think.

Do we know how much time we have to give the presentation?

Thanks,
Tal

###

- A brief history of WOFF.
	- @font-face was becoming a hot topic in 2009. Everyone was looking at the same issue from different perspectives.
		- Web developers wanted fonts.
		- Font makers wanted a long term solution.
		- Browser makers wanted a solution that didn't require too much new technology and that didn't place them in a legally precarious position.
		- Lots of shouting and finger pointing from all sides.
	- A variant of EOT was proposed.
		- Some browser makers were skeptical.
		- The implementation of the format in IE had some important bugs.
		- The discussion became increasingly less productive.
	- Jonathan Kew, at Mozilla, invented a format called ZOT.
		- It was conceptually similar to EOT, bt didn't have the legacy concerns.
		- Some of the browser makers expressed interest.
		- Font makers did not express much interest.
	- We proposed a format called .webfont.
		- It was a ZIP package containing a font and some XML metadata.
		- Font makers liked our idea and started speaking up in favor of it.
		- The browser makers seemed interested, but had some concerns.
	- Håkon Wium Lie suggested that ZOT be merged with .webfont.
		- We did. WOFF was born.
	- A consensus started to form.
		- Some font makers liked it and publicly endorsed it.
			- [show supporter names]
		- Some browser makers liked it and publicly endorsed it.
		- The W3C, which had been following the developments all along, became interested.
		- This is very important because we have a broad level of agreement about the benefits and necessity of the format.
	- Mozilla, Opera and Microsoft formally submitted the spec to the W3C for standardization.
	- The W3C accepted and formed a Working Group.
			- [show participant logos]
				- Adobe
				- Apple
				- Dave Crossland
				- Google
				- Bitstream
				- LettError
				- Microsoft
				- Monotype Imaging
				- Mozilla
				- Opera
				- Tiro Typeworks
				- Type Supply
	- Everyone is working together. Typography is important.
		- Some font makers are already using WOFF.
		- Lots of other typography developments in web technology.
			- CSS3 features, etc.
		- Exciting time for typography!

- What is WOFF?
	- WOFF is not a font format, it is a font packaging format.
	- [File diagram.]
		- It contains font data.
		- It may contain some metadata about the font.
		- It may contain some private data that is only relevant to the creator of the file.
	- Font data.
		- Some terminology first.
			- We have OpenType and Open Font Format. They are the same thing.
			- They are actually SFNT files.
			- So are classic TrueType files.
			- A SFNT is made of separate sections that contain different types of data, called tables.
				- cmap contains the glyph to Unicode mapping
				- name contains the naming data.
				- etc.
		- In WOFF, these tables are compressed individually.
			- The appropriate decompression functionality already exists within browsers.
		- Because of the per table compression, a browser can download all or only part of the WOFF.
			- ** This is purely hypothetical. Any better examples? **
			- For example, say the browser sees that the WOFF to download is 5 mb.
			- Instead of pulling the whole file over, it pulls only the cmap.
			- It compares the Unicode indexes needed for the text to be displayed.
			- If the text can be rendered with the font, it pulls over the rest of the data.
			- If not, it doesn't bother with the rest of the WOFF.
		- Once the compressed tables have been downloaded, the browser can reassemble a perfect copy of the original SFNT data.
		- This reassembled font can be handed over to font-integrity checkers, rasterizers and so on.
	- Metadata.
		- This is XML. Common format. Easy to edit and read.
		- Contains information about the font.
			- [List of elements.]
		- These elements are a superset of the data fields in formats we have worked with along with some additions that we think are necessary.
			- It has been pointed out that the duplication with the name table data in the SFNT may not be necessary.
				- It may also be necessary.
				- Explain example of a designer licensing a font to a service and how the metadata can reflect this.
				- The name table is also extremely complex to interpret.
					- Thousands and thousands of possible combinations.
					- [My quick math shows 150,832 possible combinations.]
					- Browsers don't want to have to know about the deep structures in Opentype.
		- These elements may be localized for specific languages.
			- They don't have to be.
			- We specify a standard protocol for selecting the appropriate text.
			- User agents already know how to present XML data
		- What can be done with this?
			- Font makers can include data about the specific WOFF file.
				- license data
				- licensee
			- Browsers could show this to users upon request.
				- [Diagram showing hypothetical UI.]
				- This would be useful to web developers‚ "What font is that?"
	- Private data.
		- This is entirely up to the creator of the WOFF.
		- We don't know what it will be used for, but we know that we have needed this kind of thing in other formats in the past.

- WOFF tools
	- (all subject to proper licensing.)
	- Jonathan Kew's command line tools.
	- Online converters.
	- Tal's tools for foundries.
		- Validator that may move to the W3C.
	- Others?

Received on Thursday, 5 August 2010 22:25:29 UTC