- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:57:54 +0100
- To: "WebFonts WG" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Hello WebFonts,
Minutes are in html at
http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-webfonts-minutes.html
and below as text
WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
23 Feb 2011
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/02/23-webfonts-irc
Attendees
Present
Vlad, Jdaggett, Christopher, Sergey, Erik, John, Chris, Tal,
Jonathan
Regrets
Chair
Vlad
Scribe
ChrisL
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]actions
* [5]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 23 February 2011
<erik> (I have trouble dialing in, "this passcode is not valid" -
will continue to try)
it accepted my passcode
<jdaggett> erik: i seemed to get on fine
<jdaggett> dialing into the us number
<erik> (Zakim Paris didn't accept, Zakim London did, calling via
skype)
<scribe> scribenick: ChrisL
ChrisL: waiting on responses from Bert.
... sent response to Erik Muller
... will commit the changes after the call
Vlad: ok
... wanted to discuss SOR and way to relax it
... but we have no-one from Apple or Microsoft or Opera on this call
... dont want to remove something from the spec, hoping it later
gets added elsewhere
... with a note saying its subject to change in the future
... reviewed process document and it allows features to be marked as
'at risk' and the WG may remove them (but is not forced to)
... if we do that it avoids risk of a second last call if we drop
the feature
<sergeym> I'm here, but can't call in
ChrisL: yes, that is correct
Vlad: there is a majority who want it done one way and a minority
who want it another way
... so we should mark i as at risk. If we can convince CSS WG to put
it in CSS3 Fonts then we can drop it once that is in. Its not WOFF
specific
jdaggett: Even then you still have a dependency of WOFF on CSS3
Fonts which is dependent of From-Origin which does not exist yet
Vlad: yes but we would be moving in the right direction
... meanwhile implementations can go forward. Currently we have two
implementations per spec
jdaggett: there was consensus at one point but now there is not.
There has been a split
Vlad: Hakon voiced some concerns and said some in Opera are for,
some against; and company position in balance was to abstain
jdaggett: its not majority rule. Consensus
Vlad: we have neither a consensus to keep it or to remove it, so at
risk seems better
jdaggett: So you say add a note with SOR default with CORS to relax
is at risk
Vlad: More specific, two notes
... one about CORS saying we believe FO may be better but there is
no spec
... second is for SOR saying we could remove it if we have consensus
to remove it or if its added in CSS3 Fonts spec which is a better
place for it
jdaggett: Concerned about the feature 'might change'. at risk is
either keep or drop
<Vlad> [6]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi
Vlad: so CORS would be 'at risk' and explain why, because FO is
better
jdaggett: Better if its in the CSS3 Fonts spec
... tied to @font-face not to WOFF specifically
... wil lput it in an editors draft but mark as at risk then see
what flies
Vlad: So should people join CSS WG ?
jdaggett: Dave Singer and Hakon arte there already
Vlad: I could join as well
ChrisL; So am I and Sylvain
Vlad: Recommend people join that group as well
jdaggett: Unfortunate no-one from Apple is here to clarify which of
the possible future options they are comfortable with
... CSS WG is a different group, not clear whether they will like it
or not. But f2f in two weeks from now
Vlad; I can't make that meeting
jdaggett: I will add it and we can have the discussion in CSS WG.
... want to avoid specs that can never move on
Vlad: can you express the majority opinion here
jdaggett: all sides will be well represented
... Chris could write up a proposed revision to mark it as at risk
ChrisL: sure
action Chris to propose at-risk woding
<trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Propose at-risk wording [on Chris
Lilley - due 2011-03-02].
jdaggett: then can propose it to CSS WG
Vlad: Chris and i are not available next week, and the week after is
CSS so we should cancel those?
jdaggett: Not sure about that
ChrisL: will be in NZ for SVG; not going to CSS WG in California
unfortunately
Vlad: proposing to postpone until we have news from the CSS WG
(we agree on timezones and stuff - CSS WG f2f clashes with WebFonts
WG telcon)
Vlad: so we cancel the next two weeks calls
John: So implementors can still choose to not implement a feature
Vlad: (quotes from
[7]http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi)
[7] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi)
John: we seem to be headed towards non interoperability
Vlad: at-risk features are still normative and are still tested
jdaggett; at risk just lets us drop it later without another last
call
jdaggett: One way to get interop is that FO header goes in a spec,
and people agree on a default if not present, so there is a middle
ground. FO influences SOR or not
... that could get us interop
... One tricky thing, not clear which WG would have FO in its
charter
... Hakon is pushing for HTML WG, seems not in scope there
Vlad: Maciej mentioned WebApps
jdaggett: That might be tricky from a rechartering perspective
... would have been better to have these objections and alternate
proposals when the charer was reviewed, rather than now
Vlad: any objections to marking SOR and CORS as at-risk
(none heard)
Vlad: Lets look at open actions
actions
[8]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open
[8] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open
action-52?
<trackbot> ACTION-52 -- Chris Lilley to respond to erik muller on
pronunciation and sorting -- due 2010-12-08 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [9]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/52
[9] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/52
jdaggett: mail today - oh, different subject
action-57?
<trackbot> ACTION-57 -- Jonathan Kew to respons on issue-14 -- due
2011-01-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [10]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/57
[10] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/57
jfkthame: wil lget to it this week. its on direction attributes
action-59?
<trackbot> ACTION-59 -- Chris Lilley to respond to I18n-ISSUE-2 --
due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [11]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/59
[11] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/59
ChrisL: yes I did that one
close action-59
<trackbot> ACTION-59 Respond to I18n-ISSUE-2 closed
action-61?
<trackbot> ACTION-61 -- Chris Lilley to provide samples and respond
to I18n -- due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/61
[12] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/61
ChrisL: working on that before the call
action-62?
<trackbot> ACTION-62 -- Jonathan Kew to modify spec text re. div and
span in text elements -- due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/62
[13] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/62
blocked on 61
action-73?
<trackbot> ACTION-73 -- Chris Lilley to edit WOFF faq with Johns
text incorporating Vlad's corrections -- due 2011-02-16 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/73
[14] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/73
John: wil send some updates in the next couple of days
action-75?
<trackbot> ACTION-75 -- John Daggett to contact Hakon regarding FO
spec -- due 2011-02-23 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [15]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/75
[15] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/75
jdaggett: yes that is done
close action-75
<trackbot> ACTION-75 Contact Hakon regarding FO spec closed
Vlad: OK so next call March 16th
adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[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, 23 February 2011 15:57:54 UTC