- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:10:55 +0200
- To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Hello,
Minutes of today's call at
http://www.w3.org/2011/06/22-webfonts-minutes.html
and below as text for tracker.
WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
22 Jun 2011
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2011Jun/0086.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/22-webfonts-irc
Attendees
Present
+1.781.970.aaaa, +1.417.671.aabb, +44.845.397.aacc, ChrisL,
+1.408.536.aadd, jfkthame, jdaggett, Vlad, Glenn
Regrets
Tal
Chair
Vlad
Scribe
ChrisL
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Formal objection from Samsung
* [6]Summary of Action Items
_________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 22 June 2011
<scribe> scribe: ChrisL
<erik> can't call in, sorry
Formal objection from Samsung
[7]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2011AprJun/0069.html
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2011AprJun/0069.html
Vlad: Glenn has joined the call.Please give the background for your
objection. There has been much mailing list discussion
glenn: represent Samsung.Padt member of CSS WG.
... in section 1 intro it has three requirements on user agents
... unusual to have normative requirements in introduction
... the note seems to contain a normative must, unusual in a note
... these should not be in an introduction
... core issue is that these three paragraphs and note make
reference to css3 rules and ua behaviour,this constrains
implementations of woff
... other implementations might use other ferencencing mechanisms or
other access policy
... majorr objection is use of referencing mechanisms and ua
resource fetching in this file format specification rather than some
other document
... if these are all removed and subtiture text offered this would
solve the objection
jdaggett: which version are you looking at
<Vlad> [8]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/
[8] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/
<cslye> [9]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/
[9] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/
ChrisL: the /TR version. Glenn, the editors draft has moved this
normative text from the introduction
jdaggett: which version of the css3 fonts spec did you look at?
glenn: just the woff part
... ok so my first issue is solved
... in the editors draft
... want to see the general requirements removed
... a separate document defining this would be okay
... access control policy that applies to a ua or other agent that
uses this file format
jdaggett: on the list you seem to want the css3 font spec to change
also? or only the woff spec
glenn: same comments on css3 font spec it should not define the
fetching process
... the way to refer to a font. not a fetching mechanism. nothing
says about the transport protocol used to fetch this
... this wg does not develop css3 fonts
Vlad: yes but they are markjed as features at risk because we
believe they should be removed from the format spec and placed in
css3 fonts instead
glenn: understand but dont't agree
... right nw we have looping references
... want a tree graph not a circular graph
ChrisL: your mail says that moving all this to html5 how would that
solve your problem?
glenn: no preference
ChrisL: html5 spec and css3 spec both define auto fetching linked
resources, how do they differ
glenn: html5 defines the fetching mechanism in detail
... css3 fonts does not define that mechanism not should it
jdaggett: so you are sayingit cant define requirements around that
fetching?
jfkthame: throughout the woff document there are ua requirements
glenn: png or mpeg or jpeg dont define ua requirements in the file
format. format should be independent. conformance on processing is
reasonable, like encoding or decoding
... conformance levels related to presentation.
... those are reasonable
... requirements on access mechanisms and transport protocols are
not appropriate
jfkthame: we agree the file format is not the place to define it.
that was accepted and agreed but it is not as yet defined anywhere
else
... much harder to understand your objection to defining that in
css3 fonts. its defining the @font-face rule and entirely
appropriate to define how a ua behaves when processing that rule
glenn: other referencing specs at w3c like xlink or xml stylesheet
spec or css 2.1 which refer to other resources dont define fetching
or access semantics
... so that precedent should apply here
jdaggett: seems to be a thoretical distinction. why the requirement
to follow those boundaries
glenn: group can do as they wish, define different levels. specs are
mixing layers here, transport and formats
jdaggett: do you feel the same way about the loading mechanism of
images in the canvas api, like the tainting rules - do you object
there? this is very similar
glenn: canvas started in html5
... its linked to html5 in a way that css3 fonts is not. it doid not
start out by having acccess mechanisms in it
Vlad: historically css started as part of the html activity then
migrated
jdaggett: canvas has a similar definition about origin, if the
canvas references images from a particukar origin it has impact on
ua behavioour. its part of the html5 spec right now at w3c.
... the reason its erelevant to this discussionis an example is it
defines ua behaviour
glenn: html5 is a definition of UA behaviour. css 2 does not define
origin requirements
jdaggett: are you saying no definition of access can be in css
specs?
glenn: html5 defines a user agent. css3 should be referenceable by
other specs that use other acess control or transport mechanisms
jdaggett: cant see how a spec that defines fetching resources is not
a user agent specification
glenn: css can and has been employed in other contexts. idea of
modularisation is to make specs independent. fetchingsemantics in
css3 is going backwards. unnecessary dependencies that are not
rwquired in woff or css3
Vlad: are you saying that if we had this text in a separate spec is
okay
glenn: yes
jdaggett: pushing everything out to another spec makes no sense its
findamental to the @font-face rule
cslye: it was decided after long discussion that it was relevant
glenn: html 5 has a section that goes into great detail on resource
fetching. that is a good place to define this also
... or in a separate spec
... work with authors and content providers (scribe missed some)
guidance to authors and we are folliwing up on this. if these
requirements remain then our specs will override this and make them
optional in our specs
... if this is in a separate spec we might reference that in some
profiles
cslye: so this seems to undermine the point that defining this is
generally inappropriate
glenn: after looking at the email again we dont object to same
origin per se or to SOR vs From-origin. want the option for another
group that i am working with to have the option to refer to woff and
to css3 font face and have the option to include sor or not
jdaggett: a group that is not epub?
Vlad: epub does not have confidentially restrictions
glenn: its a group for consumer electronics and the fcc has adopted
its specs for tvs and handhed devices
... due to confidentiallity i can't say more
jdaggett: so this impacts creating a profile?
gl: yes, it means we have to overide it instead of the flexibility
of making it optional
jfkthame; consensus of the group was that this should not be
optional
cslye: yes that was what made the font vendors comfortable with it.
adobe would see no value in this spec without sor
glenn: want this to be optional. we can overide it if you publish
like this but we think its architecturally unsound. understand that
the group has asked font vendors.
... neither truetype or opentype or pdf define this
cslye: woff is not a font format its a delivery container
glenn: yes
jdaggett: having specs refer to other optional specs mean aiuthors
cant rely on the feature. so it makes things not work
glenn: might allow the user to disable user agent restrictions,that
is another option
jd; we are primarily interested in specs defined by w3c. if other
people want to profile this in other ways ...
glenn: dont see this is only for use for w3c defined user agents
Vlad: actually the group charter says that
... first statement, mission is for interiperable download of fonts
on the web
glenn: ah okay
Vlad: you said that part of the group has a strong interest ...
actually that is a resolution of the whole wg. and normative
behavious gives interop, this is also a group consensus
... agree that the format spec is not iseal, best place is in css3
fonts which is where this referencing mechanism is defined
glenn; we will object if its in either of woff or css3 specs
Vlad: so primar y requirement is to be able to profile it out?
glenn: no the primary objection is the mixing of layers
cslye: do others support you on that?
glenn: yes i have had some supporting email. have not looked at
other participants in this other consumer electronics forum but some
of them are w3c members so i will ask what their position is
... if samsung is a lone dissenter we might drop the objection later
... will look at how this is resolved
jdaggett; as editor of css3 fonts spec, i dont see a way of changing
the spec to what you are asking for, so that the same origin
mechanism goes into a third spec. it merely pushes the specs around
rather than adressing the actual issue of what the origin mechanism
should be
glenn: understand your position
... see that html5 defines same origin and something related to
fonts
... this is where it should be defined
Vlad: thanks glenn for joining us so we can better undertand each
other's positions. this has beena positive discussion and i think we
all understand the issues now
... can see that other organisations develop subset specs, this has
happened before. that is fine but for w3c we want somthing that is
coherent, tstraightforward as possible
glenn: on a final not, we are not trying to make a change
thatprecludes content authors restricting access to content. no
objecting to that. dont want to stop content authors or font
foundries protecting their content or intellectiual property
... there are mechanisms for controlling access
... autgors can express constraints on access and uas can accept
those contraints. no problem with that
... happy to attend a future call, thanks for the discussions
agdourned
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, 22 June 2011 21:10:59 UTC