- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 17:22:17 +0200
- To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Hello public-webfonts-wg,
Minutes of todays telconare here in html:
http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-minutes.html
and below as text for the benefit of tracker.
WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
05 May 2010
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010May/0028.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-irc
Attendees
Present
+31.70.360.aaaa, ChrisL, +1.443.895.aabb, Erik, Tal,
sylvaing, jdaggett, +1.978.790.aacc, Vlad, TabAtkins,
+0845397aadd, +1.250.668.aaee, +1.510.816.aaff, Jonathan,
Christopher, +1.425.213.aagg, JohnH, Sergey, Howcome
Regrets
Chair
Vlad
Scribe
Chris
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Administrivia
2. [6]Develop and approve the work plan
* [7]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 05 May 2010
<scribe> scribe: Chris
<scribe> ScribeNick: ChrisL
trackbot, status
<jdaggett> heh
The call-in telephone bridge details:
+1.617.761.6200 (Boston) or
+33.4.89.06.34.99 (Nice) or
+44.117.370.6152 (Bristol)
conference code 3668 ("FONT")
<jdaggett> m+
<jfkthame> 0845397... is jfkthame
<jfkthame> btw, jonothan is really spelled "jonathan" :)
<jfkthame> n/p
<jdaggett> yes, that's why jdaggett is better...
Administrivia
Chris explains the bots, a little
Vlad: welcome everyone
... good to have the group start
Develop and approve the work plan
[8]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Apr/00
19.html
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Apr/0019.html
Vlad: once we have a workplan agreed we can start. Any suggestions?
Chris: Looks good
Christopher: new to this and mainly listening right now
Vlad: so first item was to Discuss and finalize the WOFF
specification
... run through the text, review text for areas of improvement eg
more future proof
... whether the metasdata definition is sufficient
... for the end users and exposable by the user agents
Chris: also good to identify all the conformance statements
Christopher: Is WOFF web only? Meaning of embedding bits. Keeping
metadata in sync
Vlad: Not up to our group to make WOFF web only. No significant
power to control how it is used
<jdaggett> EPUB
<vlad> ePub developed by IDPF
Vlad: EPUB uses HTML and CSS it could use WOFF as well
... main focus is to make it suitable for the Web use. If its used
elsewhere that is out of scope
Jonathan: EPUB has no benefit to use WOFF. Its a zip file so just
add a OT file to the zip
Christopher: Informational metadata could be useful though
Joanathan: guess that is true but could go in ePUB metadata as well
Chris: license agreement may be different for OT and WOFF
Jonathan: ePub is neither print nor Web really
Vlad: Its an exampl eof Web tech being used in non-Web contexts.
Just an example
Sylvain: does ePub require all resources to be local?
Vlad: reasonable to assume any connected device will get online
resources
... bottom line, we make WOFF to be used on the Web and if it gets
used elsewhere we can't really control that
Chris: what was the point about metadata in sync?
Christopher: OT has tables and information, some people were talking
about duplicating some of that in the metadata. Wasn't sure if that
should be required to sync with OT table data
Tal: Talked about this a lot when writing spec and came up with use
cases where the dayta would not be in sync
... eg a type service that adds a different license
Vlad: fonts contributed by individual typographers and the license
reflects the EULA under which it was sold, so the vendor info goes
to the foundry selling it not the designer
Christopher: agree that there are cases where they would not be in
sync
Vlad: extended metadata, no real control on what goes in there so
its hard to mandate as its extensible by design
... embedding bits are a bone of contention, no good understanding
on how they apply to different scenarios
JohnH: Issue with embedding bits in OS/2 table wrt webfonts came out
of EOT which made an explicit association
... and the tools looked at the embedding bits for permission to
make EOT
... in the 10 year period between EOT and now, the use of embedding
bits has become much more focussed on PDF. Foundries see them in
that way
... which does not reflect licensing for web use
... so use of embedding bits gives the wrong impression to
customers. Can be helped by better metadata and clearer licenses
... should we make explicit that embedding bits are not relevant to
WOFF
... most borowsers than link to raw OT ignore embedding bits
... got impression from Si Daniels that Microsoft not so keen on
that
Vlad: Two major points, one that embeddingbits should have no impact
on usrr agents, assume the content creator read the license.
... no need for UA to doubt user intention
... seconfd point is that embedding is an indication of what is
setby the license, so its up tothe author to check the license
... differnet for static content or for user editable content
... should be informative not normative
... its toolate to look at the embedding bits once the font has been
served
JohnH; Agreed, its mainly to clarify the situation and direct people
at EULA not the embedding bits
scribe: should tools for creating WOGFF look at these, i wou;d argue
not
... also the reference to document embedding is not clear in the OT
spec
Christopher: main concern is tool s that generate woff
... sounds like we all agree that user agents ignore embedding bits,
so should we put it in the WOFF spec
Jonathan: (scribe missed)
JohnH: Si does not believe the OT spec needs to be changed here
... believes embedding does not count document serving.
Chris: Is the ISO OFF spec clearer?
(apparently its is identical)
Vlad: getting back to the workplan at
[9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Apr/00
19.html
... we can of course discuss the technical details, but later
... including conformance and how it impacts same-origin
... active discussion on that point on the mailing list
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Apr/0019.html
JohnH: Is any draft outline of the conformance spec yet?
Vlad: Its ahead of us
... some items in the WOFF spec that indicate conformance
JohnH: Agree with Chris to identify conformance in whats expected of
user agents
Vlad: agreed, and also suggest we look at any optional components to
be sure we are not missing anything by making it optional which
creates uncertainty . Prefer to avoid optional components as much as
possible
Chris: comments from mozilla on direction of referencing
Vlad; also we will find spec changes by making tests
JohnH: What are the factors that affect this?
<jfkthame> tabatkins: that'll be jdaggett's baby, i think!
jdaggett: Not clear exactly what the issues are and how long CSS3
webfonts will take
<tabatkins> Sorry!
Chris: can we help move CSS3 fonts forward?
jdagget: a common web format that is cross browser clearly helps
Vlad: one dependency, it would be good to see CSS3 Font mandate WOFF
for example
... other than this any other dependencies?
jdaggett: no, some of these are undecided. No dependency as such.
But if WOFF is to be supported by all user agents
Chris: dependency from the @font-face syntax
jdaggett: some stuff in CSS2 @font-face is dropped
vlad: WOFF tests should not test application of opentype layout
features, outside scope
Chris: (example of woff tools that drop important tables)
jdaggett: think that is a transient bug in chrome, as the tables are
difficult to validate
vlad; agree, we are making the delivery format and the user agent
will extract it and do something with it but at that point we are
outside our scope
JohnH: Having WOFF specified will lead to making solid test cases
for CSS3. not sure how it relates to the conformance spec
... difficult to test fonts to look for cross browser compat as the
services are doing PS to TT for example to serve as EOT so getting
WOFF out there will be very helpful
... likely WOFF gets specced before CSS3 is done
Vlad: getting to the top of the hour.
action; vlad draft something about embedding bits
<scribe> ACTION: vlad to draft something about embedding bits
[recorded in
[10]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - vlad
trackbot, status?
<scribe> ACTION: vladimir to draft something about embedding bits
[recorded in
[11]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Draft something about embedding bits
[on Vladimir Levantovsky - due 2010-05-12].
action-1?
<trackbot> ACTION-1 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to draft something about
embedding bits -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/1
[12] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/1
Chris: (demonstrates treackbot etc)
... Have made a pubrules-compliant wrapper so first public working
draft should be easy
vlad: other action items?
<scribe> ACTION: chris to put the action plan on the wiki [recorded
in [13]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Put the action plan on the wiki [on
Chris Lilley - due 2010-05-12].
Erik: My first w3 call - cellphones ok?
Chris: yes if there is a quiet environment
Vlad; Thanks for joining, see you next week, and on email
adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: chris to put the action plan on the wiki [recorded in
[14]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: vlad to draft something about embedding bits [recorded
in [15]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: vladimir to draft something about embedding bits
[recorded in
[16]http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-minutes.html#action02]
[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, 5 May 2010 15:22:20 UTC