- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:31:47 +0200
- To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Hello public-webfonts-wg,
Minutes from todays call at
http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-webfonts-minutes.html
and below as text.
WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
16 Jun 2010
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-webfonts-irc
Attendees
Present
+1.781.970.aaaa, +1.443.895.aabb, +1.510.816.aacc,
+1.425.882.aadd, +1.250.668.aaee, +1.206.324.aaff, jdaggett,
cslye, +47.21.65.aagg, ChrisL, +31.70.360.aahh,
+1.206.324.aaii
Regrets
Chair
vlad
Scribe
chris
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]extension mechanisms
2. [5]f2f
3. [6]metadata extensions
* [7]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<erik_> trying to connect
<erik_> still wrestling with phone, it hangs up after entering the
access code.
<jfkthame> it seems like it's just not hearing me enter the code
<sylvaing> to attach your phone number:
[8]http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/info/name.php3
[8] http://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/info/name.php3
<jfkthame> it asks again, and then just hangs up
<jdaggett> csyle: using the format "zxxx, xxx is c
<jdaggett> cslye: you're the only 510 number, right?
<cslye> That's correct.
<cslye> So, let me try this...
<erik_> unable to connect - same here.
<erik_> star / zero doesn't go anywhere either.
<sylvaing> trackbot-ng, start telcon
<trackbot> Date: 16 June 2010
<cslye> Vlad: Should we discuss origin restrictions or metadata
first?
<Vlad>
[9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Jun/00
92.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Jun/0092.html
<erik_> despite repeated tries, I'm unable to connect
<jfkthame> also unable to connect - i can watch the irc channel but
no phone connection
<sylvaing> 1) there is no security benefit here.
I can connect via the US number. France number seems unable to
accept touch tones
<erik_> trying
<sylvaing> 2) same-origin is not defined in HTML5 but in CORS. CORS
depends on HTML5 for the definition of origin and origin matching
<cslye> I connected to the Boston number with no problem, fwiw.
<sylvaing> not opposed
<erik_> I could connect via the uS number
Anne (CORS editor) opposes using CORS for WOFF
Howcome: is same-origin for WOFF or for other formats?
<sylvaing> Font vendors do not want to license raw fonts so that
shouldn't be an issue
<sylvaing> at least for some time
<cslye> I think the point is that WOFF is a "protected" format and
deserves the mild protection it gets from same-origin, whereas "raw"
fonts don't need it.
howcome, you mentioned a range of opinions in Opera - what are the
others?
howcome: others say its good, for example to save bandwidth
<cslye> When we refer to the "security" argument, we mean attacks
and such, as opposed to theft?
<sylvaing> cslye: yes
<sylvaing> notes that TypeKit et al. rely on cross domain font
access so the licensing benefit depends on who the vendor is
<jdaggett> typekit uses data urls
<jdaggett> i.e. they are not affected by this
<sylvaing> jdaggett: for Firefox, yes
<cslye> I think Typekit delivers EOT files for IE, though.
<erik_> this is the license FSI links to in their current WOFF
releases:
[10]http://www.fontfont.com/eula/license_webfonts_v_1_0.html
[10] http://www.fontfont.com/eula/license_webfonts_v_1_0.html
<sylvaing> jdaggett: there still are other browsers :) and other
font providers who link across domain e.g. ascender
2.3. Font Software File Protection. You must ensure, by applying
reasonable state-of-the-art measures, that other websites cannot
access the Font Software for display (e. g. by preventing hotlinking
and blocking direct access to the Font Software via .htaccess or
other web server configurations).
[11]http://www.fontshop.com/help/licenses/fontfont/
[11] http://www.fontshop.com/help/licenses/fontfont/
<jdaggett> sure
sg: if browsers do this, font vendors are willing in return to
llosen their licenses
<cslye> Not just loosen their license, but would be more inclined to
offer web font licenses in the first place.
erik: makes it much easier for us certainly
<erik_> (that's erik, not Erik0
erik: current licensing is in flux and depends on how WOFF spec ends
up
<Vlad> installing adequate technical protection measures that
restrict the use and/or access to the Font Software and/or
Derivative Works, for instance by binding an EOT font to the
Licensed Websites, utilizing JavaScript or access control mechanism
for cross-origin resource sharing and/or protecting a sIFR Flash
file against use on other websites than Licensed Websites by
restricting domain access only to Licensed Websites.
<cslye> :)
vlad: monotype license encourages woff usage
sylvaing: generaly positive on same-origin
howcome: abstain
<cslye> Does anyone explicitly object to requiring access control?
resolution: same-origin restriction is mandatory for WOFF. modulo
editorial changes discussed on the list
extension mechanisms
f2f
<cslye> I agree.
vlad: majority favour a f2f at typecon in LA
chris: will try, but CSS in Oslo next day, also affects howcome,
jdagett and sylvaing
<cslye> My concern with ATypI is that it's closer to TPAC. (Also
more difficult for me personally.)
vlad: dublin atypi
john: can't do dublin
cslye: cant do dublin
(sep 9-12)
<sylvaing> will be at TPAC
howcome: do we need a physical f2f?
<erik_> [12]http://atypi.org/03_Dublin
[12] http://atypi.org/03_Dublin
vlad: seen as desirable
<erik_> [13]http://www.typecon.com/
[13] http://www.typecon.com/
<cslye> It's possible for me -- but travel budget makes it
difficult.
sylvaing: is there enough of an agenda to justify travel?
<sylvaing> if people find themselves in the same spot, they can
certainly meet
vlad: colocating would capitalize on existing travel
chris: can do call-in using a bridge
cslye: travel restrictions - good to have the WG there. How can we
entice people?
vlad: everyone plese restate their travel plans including existing
travel
<jdaggett> would love to come to typecon but with another meeting
directly following it, that's tricky
<sylvaing> same as jdaggett even though it's fewer miles for me
chris: some of tpac will be spent in liaison
<tiro_j> I will be at TypeCon, but not at ATypI, posibly at TPAC
vlad: we asked for no overlap with css, can we reschedule?
<sylvaing> overlap with CSS would be quite unhelpful for 4+ of us
<scribe> ACTION: chris ask tpac organisers to reschedule webfonts to
thur/fri at tpac [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-9 - Ask tpac organisers to reschedule
webfonts to thur/fri at tpac [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-06-23].
metadata extensions
vlad: from discussions so far, etadata as specified in draft seems
near consensus. number and type of elements is ok for font vendors
... implementors said it was ok even though optional
... so we can state consensus on the existing set of standard
metadata elements
... so then we can discuss extension mechanism only
(no objections)
howcome: not sure
... want to see a complete proposal
vlad: can modify for good reason after fpwd
<sylvaing> doesn't know either but acknowledges that what we have is
already being used. that's important
vlad: simple key-value is proposed for extensions
... localisation is important, tried to be impartial in summary,
hope that was clear. but speaking for monotype, opinion is that the
solution form jonathan kew was the best one
... sergei commented to say it was simple to implement, one pass
sergeym: yes
vlad: duplication should not cause significant size increase as it
compresses well
howcome: difficult to discuss now, propose to delay all metadayta
out of 1.0
vlad: including the standard metadata?
<cslye> Wouldn't that just create a lot of ad hoc metadata in
shipping WOFFs?
tal: strongly object, that is the basis we got people to sign on,
removing it would be insulting
vlad: so please respond on email
<sylvaing> we could keep what we have and postpone extensibility. I
think this is what Hakon is saying ?
howcome: yes. just t eh extensibility
sylvaing: document what is used now
... extensibility comes later
... now one is using extensibility right now
... so drive to LC, CR. Extend once we have actual requirements
howcome: ok with that
sylvaing: do we want to delay for uncertain extensibility?
vlad: if its in fpwd theyn we get feedback and can take it out if
needed
<cslye> If we want to get use cases for extended metadata for 1.0,
we might get that out of TypeCon and ATypI conversations.
sylvaing: bar metadata, what other issues do we have?
vblad: not many
howcome: so lets get fpwd soon
vlad: want to have a solution that many of us can live with. if its
in the fpwd we can ask for comments. if its not in the draft we
can't get comments
sylvaing: ok lets get it out there
sergeym: font vendors unlikely to want to remove the extensibility
cslye; any objection to put it in current draft?
sylvaing: current draft represents what is out there
Vlad: better to have an extension proposal for people to discuss
john: put extensibility as a separate item?
chris: putting in extensibility and deleting later if needed is
better from a patent policy point of view
vlad: lets use next couple of weeks to try to get agreement here.
only half a page or so anyway
<jdaggett> history has been made...
howcome: i am willing to let microsoft cast my vote here
resolved: fpwd in a couple of weeks with whatever we have consensus
on
<scribe> scribe: chris
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: chris ask tpac organisers to reschedule webfonts to
thur/fri at tpac [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2010/06/16-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]
_________________________________________________________
--
Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org
Technical Director, Interaction Domain
W3C Graphics Activity Lead
Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 15:32:51 UTC