W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > December 2010

Minutes, 1 Dec 2010 WebFonts WG call

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:53:23 +0100
Message-ID: <115355221.20101201165323@w3.org>
To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Hello public-webfonts-wg,

Minutes are here http://www.w3.org/2010/12/01-webfonts-minutes.html

and below as text for tracker.

                 WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

01 Dec 2010

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/12/01-webfonts-irc


          Tal, ChrisL, +1.978.790.aaaa, Vlad




     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]epub update
         2. [5]woff metadata comments
         3. [6]test plan issues
     * [7]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 01 December 2010

   I started on a disposition of comments

      [8] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html

   <tal> I had some phone trouble this morning, maybe zakim got
   confused by me calling in twice?

   <erik> I'm not able to call in today. I'll follow on IRC.

   Vlad: having internet issues, will join shortly

epub update

   <scribe> scribenick: chrisl

   Vlad: strong interest in woff support from many participants, but
   Adobe representative is against WOFF for epub
   ... if publishers want it, they will add it
   ... waiting for response from internal Adobe discussions. May be
   opposition was based on resource issues

woff metadata comments

   <tal> [9]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html

      [9] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html

   ChrisL: extensibility via namespaces is good for totally open

   tal: we dont want it totally open ended

   Vlad: want to not deviate too much from the original, and widely
   deployed, submission. This would be a breaking change
   ... and we do have an extensibility element

   tal: fontshop and others are using woff with metadata - making all
   of those invalid is a problem

   ChrisL: (explains last call process on getting a response back from

   Vlad: dont like a breaking change
   ... dont want to invalidate the usage of early adopters

   <scribe> ACTION: chris to respond to erik muller on namespaces in
   metadata [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Respond to erik muller on namespaces
   in metadata [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-12-08].

   <scribe> ACTION: chris to respond to erik muller on pronunciation
   and sorting [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - Respond to erik muller on
   pronunciation and sorting [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-12-08].

   ChrisL: adding @url to license text elements is a good idea

   (generally seem to be in favour of separate urls for license

   Vlad: additional metadata does not override the license

   Vlad; link can point to a page with multiple further links

   ChrisL: woff benefit is being explicit on license. prefer to have
   option for separate ones

   Vlad: will discuss with Monotype legal

   tal: nothing changes for existing users. it adds options

   ChrisL: important that this is not a breaking change

   Vlad: easier for distributors to use a single place provided by the
   font owner

   tal: mentioned that url at top of license, so should allow to have
   no text below. some foundries want just a link, no text.

   ChrisL: please send that as a separate comment

   Vlad: spec is clear that the text in a license element is about the
   license, not a copy of the license
   ... better to have some text, for users

   tal: made some fonts for a foundry and they said that they wanted
   just a url, no text
   ... spec currently says we need both
   ... should it be either/or

   ChrisL: seems more reasonable to me

test plan issues

   tal: do we neeed null bytes. some things like that came up in the
   test plan, they are in red


     [12] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan-UserAgent

   tal: in the process of doing the test plan, multiple spec
   read-thoughs turned up some issues.
   ... some are clear, like the file has to be long enough to contain
   the header
   ... if the flavour is in contradiction with the actual table data.
   spec is silent on that.

   ChrisL: there are multiple flavours for truetype

   tal: thses have caused problems for text engines before

   Vlad: packaging mechanism is separate - if you package a broken
   thing, the package is not at fault

   tal: jdaggett said list them all, so i did

   Vlad: think that particular one is out of scope

   tal: its additional tests

   Vlad: may cross boundary between packaging and font sanitising

   ChrisL: these are good for a validator, but in spme cases its not
   the woff spec that is violated but the OT spec

   tal: some t=of these are crashing bugs for certain OS
   ... number of tables, needs to be parseable
   ... some are tagged as format bit also need to be UA conformance as
   ... read the wiki pages

   Vlad: anything here needs more discussion?

   tal: tried to be very clear

   Vlad: lets discuss on email and make resolutions next week on the
   red items


     [13] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan-Format

   tal: have worked on infrastructure for tests
   ... have been reading the css testsuite documentation


   (general appreciation for tal's work)

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: chris to respond to erik muller on namespaces in
   metadata [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: chris to respond to erik muller on pronunciation and
   sorting [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Wednesday, 1 December 2010 15:54:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:04:23 UTC