W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webfonts-wg@w3.org > June 2011

Minutes, 15 June WebFonts WG meeting

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:01:56 +0200
Message-ID: <116544856.20110615170156@w3.org>
To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Hello public-webfonts-wg,

Minutes available at

and below as text for tracker

                 WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

15 Jun 2011


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2011Jun/0019.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-webfonts-irc


          Tal, Vlad, Erik, Christopher, Sergey, Chris, Jonathan,




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]CSS WG report on @font-face
         2. [6]WOFF edits
         3. [7]referencing html5
         4. [8]f2f
     * [9]Summary of Action Items

   <trackbot> Date: 15 June 2011

   <scribe> ScribeNick: ChrisL

   <jdaggett> hmm, zakim is not happy?

   why is zakim not happy?

   <jdaggett> not seeing those on the phone...

   <Vlad> trackbot, start telcon

   <trackbot> Meeting: WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

   <trackbot> Date: 15 June 2011

   zakim appears to not recognise anyones phone numbers today

   Vlad: lets review the resent edits. also, hear from CSS WG attendees
   on CSS3 fonts


     [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jun/0329.html

   jdaggett: here are the minutes. lots of tangential discussion, Bert
   complained its http-centric and so on
   ... at least the method of restriction is http-centric. but really
   that is an issue with ftp etc not with our spec
   ... all the implementors seem ok with it already
   ... not clear if SOR at risk is enouh to move forward
   ... peter Linss suggested it was not CSS WG problem but WebFonts WG
   ... but it elongs where @font-face is defined

   Vlad: it started here but was proposed to apply to all font formats
   ... read the minute sand there was no clear decision

   jdaggett: problem was tangential discussions
   ... Bert did not propose a credible alternative and it did not seem
   ... implementors agree some form of SOR is a good thing

   Vlad: discussed this with him at AC meeting and Bert agreed at the
   ... and agreed fonts not reallyy like images, in the minutes

CSS WG report on @font-face

   jdaggett: its a big rathole
   ... Bert always seems to say EOT is better and so on

   Vlad: any specific objections?

   jdaggett: no, just diffuse discussion. Florian from Opera said
   current wording was acceptable
   ... depends if wording is good enough for CR

   Vlad: clear its better to SOR based on the font link in @font-face

   jdaggett: Peter's point was tha CSS WG should not decide but its
   part of te @font-face mechanism. He wanted someone else to solve it
   ... if that mechansm happens to cover things other than fonts then
   good but we dont have consensus on that
   ... any way we can pre-flight the wording?

   ChrisL: will ask PLH

   Vlad: note the concern that this could delay CSS3 Fonts
   ... can we facilitate that decision?

   ChrisL: we can send a liaison saying we want to depend on that

   jdaggett: we don't really have any strong objections at this point

   Vlad: what is Google's position, do we know?

   jdaggett: Tab was involved but not at this meeting. Unclear

   Vlad: Tab said it was easy to implement in webkit

   jdaggett: needs negotiation between webkit committors

   Vlad: Apple objection seems to be resolved

   jdaggett: FF and IE implemented as CSS3 Fonts says

   <scribe> ACTION: Vlad to send a liaison to CSS saying that we have a
   consensus that this feature is best in CSS3 Fonts module and want to
   see t accepted there so we can reference it [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Send a liaison to CSS saying that we
   have a consensus that this feature is best in CSS3 Fonts module and
   want to see t accepted there so we can reference it [on Vladimir
   Levantovsky - due 2011-06-22].

   Vlad: consesnus of font vendors and impleentors

   jdaggett; sounds reasonable

WOFF edits

   jfkthame: set some actions pending


     [12] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/pendingreview

   jfkthame: removed summary of conformance requirements and relocated
   notes as discussed

   ChrisL: reminded commmentors this was done

   Relocate text describing div and span was done, too

   Move BCP47 to normative and change are expected to to SHOULD

   jfkthame: became a normative reference and language updated

   Add expected children of all metadata elements

   jfkthame: had a go at that, not clrear how much detail to go into.

   ChrisL: text element is missing the same form of description as the

   jfkthame: seems easy

   action jfkthame to add text element descrition

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-94 - Add text element descrition [on
   Jonathan Kew - due 2011-06-22].

   ChrisL: we missed impleenting the comment from Eric Muller, to add
   @url to text inside license


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

   Vlad: legl folks font like a license that is different in different
   languages as the least restrictive one becomes the agreement

   ChrisL: ... so we decided not to add the per language links?

   Vlad: one link points to a page which can be a landing page with
   further links to multiple languages. its up to the font vendor to do

   cslye: what Vlad describes is how Adobe would do it too
   ... so that is fine for me
   ... would not watnt to limit what other people expect t be there

   Vlad: its a license description not a full license. it says how to
   get it

   cslye: ok

   ChrisL; ok so the spec is good as it stands ad I will update the DoC

   jfkthame: another minor edit was to requie xml to be utf-8 as
   discssed on the list
   ... makes life simpler

   ChrisL: seemed to be broad agreement on that
   ... need to mark up the testable assertion and add a test for it

   tal: there is an existing test for utf-8 or utf-16 so that is easy
   to change

   <scribe> ACTION: tal to modify the test for xml encoding [recorded
   in [14]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-webfonts-minutes.html#action02]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-95 - Modify the test for xml encoding [on
   Tal Leming - due 2011-06-22].


     [15] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html#issue-16

   jfkthame: yes we alked about that

   action jfkthame to add the non-normative wording from richard ishida
   about droppingOT tables

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-96 - Add the non-normative wording from
   richard ishida about droppingOT tables [on Jonathan Kew - due


     [16] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/DoC/issues-lc-2010.html#issue-31


   The id attribute of the uniqueid element, and of several further
   metadata elements defined below, is not of type ID. Its form is

   at the discretion of the font creator or vendor.

   <scribe> ACTION: jfkthame: to add the resised wording on @id
   [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-97 - Add the resised wording on @id [on
   Jonathan Kew - due 2011-06-22].

   Vlad: so its fixing bgs n how text shows up

   jfkthame: same for filenames. there is a limit

   ChrisL: (describes 3 options)

   jfkthame: there are unicode controls for directionality that could
   be used if needed

   Vlad: fine with the third option

   jfkthame: option 2 would be much more complex. just not worth it

   <scribe> ACTION: ChrisL to propose the third option [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-98 - Propose the third option [on Chris
   Lilley - due 2011-06-22].

   ChrisL: aparet from the above the edits are all good

referencing html5

   <jdaggett> yup

   <jdaggett> ChrisL: we lost you...

   <Vlad> Chris, we lost you on the phone

   (scribe got disconnected)

   <scribe> ACTION: ChrisL to respond to Glenn [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-99 - Respond to Glenn [on Chris Lilley -
   due 2011-06-22].


   tal: f2f to discuss test suite?

   Vlad: low response to typecon suggstion
   ... what about atypi in september? or tpac in november

   <jdaggett> atypi is in iceland?

   cslye: will be at atypi

   sergeym: not sure but more likely if we have a f2f

   tal: sure

   Vlad: will be and definitely if f2f

   ChrisL: could be there

   jdaggett: regrets during september

   14-18 Sept, Rekjavik Iceland

   <cslye> [20]http://www.atypi.org/2011-reykjavik

     [20] http://www.atypi.org/2011-reykjavik

   12-12 are tutorials


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: ChrisL to propose the third option [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: ChrisL to respond to Glenn [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: jfkthame: to add the resised wording on @id [recorded
   in [23]http://www.w3.org/2011/06/15-webfonts-minutes.html#action03]
   [NEW] ACTION: tal to modify the test for xml encoding [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Vlad to send a liaison to CSS saying that we have a
   consensus that this feature is best in CSS3 Fonts module and want to
   see t accepted there so we can reference it [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, 15 June 2011 15:02:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:15 UTC