Minutes, 27 April 2011 WebFonts WG telcon

Hello public-webfonts-wg,

Minutes in html
http://www.w3.org/2011/04/27-webfonts-minutes.html

or plaintext below

                 WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

27 Apr 2011

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/04/27-webfonts-irc

Attendees

   Present
          +1.781.970.aaaa, [Microsoft], +1.408.536.aabb, ChrisL,
          +44.845.397.aacc, Vlad, jfkthame, cslye

   Regrets
   Chair
          SV_MEETING_CHAIR

   Scribe
          ChrisL

Contents

     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]at-risk wording
         2. [5]Last Call comments
         3. [6]action items
         4. [7]actions
         5. [8]media types
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 27 April 2011

   whoever was calling fro US or Canada area code 781 had a very noisy
   line and has been muted

   <Vlad> aaaa is Vlad, I am in the office but it is noisy here

   <scribe> ScribeNick: ChrisL

at-risk wording

   Vlad: action was closed, original wording was added to spec
   ... Chris and I had discussions with Maciej and Dave from Apple
   ... productive call, primary objection was that SOR was specific to
   WOFF
   ... we al agreed better in CSS3 fonts, via css@font-face
   ... Maciej says this is easier to implement
   ... and that if this is *normative* in CSS3 Font then it resolves
   his objection
   ... so as long as CSS WG agrees we are good
   ... so we need an email from WebFonts WG to CSS WG asking for this

   ChrisL: and stage 2 is to get editing help from Apple to work on
   from-Origin (CORER) spec

   jdaggett, can you get onto the phone?

   Vlad: so then we can reference CSS3 Fonts module and remove the
   requirement from WOFF

   <scribe> ACTION: jfkthame to add updated at-risk wording to spec
   [recorded in
   [10]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/27-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-87 - Add updated at-risk wording to spec
   [on Jonathan Kew - due 2011-05-04].

   <cslye> Would someone mind posting a link to the latest draft spec?

Last Call comments

   Vlad: saw some recent comments

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

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

   Vlad: time to wait for a response

   cslye: will send in responses for issues 3 to 8 asap

   [12]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html#issue-34

     [12] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html#issue-34

   action jfkthame to add wording on last call issue 34

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-88 - Add wording on last call issue 34 [on
   Jonathan Kew - due 2011-05-04].

   ChrisL: should add example with license URI and no text inline to
   spec?

   Vlad: ok, add it
   ... but spec seems clear

   (noisy line issues)

   jfkthame and ChrisL willhave an editing telcon to resolve remaining
   spec edits

   <Vlad> Link for action 87:
   [13]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2011Mar/0
   002.html

     [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2011Mar/0002.html

   [14]http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/#font-face-loading

     [14] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/#font-face-loading

   jfkthame: its in the editors draft section 4.8

   <jfkthame>
   [15]http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/Overview.html#same-origin-res
   triction

     [15] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-fonts/Overview.html#same-origin-restriction

   CSS Fonts Module Level 3

   Editor's Draft 25 March 2011

   CSS Fonts Module Level 3

   Editor's Draft 7 April 2011

   ChrisL: ok that is wierd

   jfkthame: section 4.8 is clear so the editor agrees
   ... so we need the reaction of the CSS WG, editor agrees already

   Vlad: good, but that does not ACTION: Chris to send email to CSS WG
   asking for SOR to be mandatory as it is in editors draft

action items

   Vlad: what is the timescale for spec editing efforts

   jfkthame: swamped recently but if talk with Chris next week then we
   can get the other edits done quickly, next week or so

   Vlad: so in 2 weeks we will have all remaining answers, if they
   respond, and also the spec edits done

   ChrisL (explains transition call procedure)

   ChrisL: there is a period of required notice for a transition call

   Vlad: out on 11 May

   cslye; so am I

actions

   action-80?

   <trackbot> ACTION-80 -- Chris Lilley to respond on Use of attributes
   for human readable text -- due 2011-03-23 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [16]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/80

     [16] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/80

   close action-80

   <trackbot> ACTION-80 Respond on Use of attributes for human readable
   text closed

   action-57?

   <trackbot> ACTION-57 -- Jonathan Kew to respons on issue-14 -- due
   2011-01-26 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [17]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/57

     [17] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/57

   commentor accepted

   close action-57

   <trackbot> ACTION-57 Respons on issue-14 closed

   [18]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html#issue-14

     [18] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html#issue-14

   action-79?

   <trackbot> ACTION-79 -- Chris Lilley to respond on issue-25 -- due
   2011-03-23 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [19]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/79

     [19] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/79

   <scribe> done just before call

   close action-79

   <trackbot> ACTION-79 Respond on issue-25 closed

   ChrisL: neeed to update DoC on issues 25 and 26
   ... sent just before call

   action-85?

   <trackbot> ACTION-85 -- Chris Lilley to find out from mac users how
   to set binary in the commandline cvs -- due 2011-04-13 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [20]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/85

     [20] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/85

   close action-85

   <trackbot> ACTION-85 Find out from mac users how to set binary in
   the commandline cvs closed

   action-86?

   <trackbot> ACTION-86 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to email the WebFonts
   WG with the proposed response to ISO -- due 2011-04-20 -- OPEN

   <trackbot> [21]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/86

     [21] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/86

   Vlad: adressed after last call

   close action-86

   <trackbot> ACTION-86 Email the WebFonts WG with the proposed
   response to ISO closed

media types

   Vlad: two proposals in ISO, bth require parameters

   ChrisL: IETF does not like media types that require sniffing of the
   content to add parameters. They like a simple one to one mapping
   from filename extension

   Vlad: proposal is to distinguish simple, opentype and graphite
   layout and ttf or cff outlines
   ... for MP4 it has five different medie types depending on payload

   cslye: are implementors likely to comment on what they prefer?

   Vlad: not sure what is the driving force.

   cslye: where is this written up, so i can get internal review?

   Vlad: (checks)

   jfkthame: not much value in media type distinctions.more interested
   in @font-format hints

   Vlad: so you prefer a single media type?

   <Vlad> Link to ISO amendment:
   [22]http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-04/part22/of
   f-amd.zip

     [22] http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/working_documents/mpeg-04/part22/off-amd.zip

   jfkthame: not much value from either different media types or frm
   parameters. a single media type is fine as it does not help make the
   decision to request the resource or not
   ... that decision depends on the @font-face rule

   Vlad: that is true for CSS renderers. but there are other uses of
   fonts, including remote font linking

   ChrisL: like mpeg-4 scene descriptions?

   Vlad: yes

   cslye: woff does have a limitation in how its intended to be
   deployed. does that provide enough control?

   Vlad: fonts can be used in other rich media and they need media
   types

   ChrisL: @font-face was originally going to use media types but that
   did not work out so we ended up with magic strings, unfortunately

   Vlad: can the mpeg4 precedent be used?

   ChrisL: depends also on serfver side or client-side labelling

   cslye: do the implementors want this or care about it?

   Vlad: in some cases, yes

   cslye: if they don't have to download and inspect it ...

   Vlad: most such implementations are mobile and constrained resource

   ChrisL: in that case I suggest a single sfnt media type with params
   for glyph type and layout table usage

   Vlad: thats what Dave Singer proposed also

   adjourned

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: jfkthame to add updated at-risk wording to spec
   [recorded in
   [23]http://www.w3.org/2011/04/27-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]

   [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, 27 April 2011 21:08:41 UTC