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

Telcon minutes, Wed. June 29, 2011

From: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@MonotypeImaging.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:41:42 -0400
To: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7534F85A589E654EB1E44E5CFDC19E3D0BE7CF9BF3@wob-email-01.agfamonotype.org>
http://www.w3.org/2011/06/29-webfonts-minutes.html
and below as plain text:

                               - DRAFT -

                 WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

29 Jun 2011

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/06/29-webfonts-irc

Attendees

   Present
   Regrets
   Chair
          SV_MEETING_CHAIR

   Scribe
          John

Contents

     * [3]Topics
     * [4]Summary of Action Items
     _________________________________________________________

   <trackbot> Date: 29 June 2011

   <Vlad> As part of the call I'd like to discuss and finalize this:
   [5]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2011Jun/00
   93.html

      [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2011Jun/0093.html

   <jdaggett> Vlad: i'm here, just trying to connect via skype...

   Vlad opens with discussion of Samsung objection

   JD: seems nothing new from Glenn

   Vlad: difficult to get solid informaton re. concern

   JD: Is Vlad aware of video spec referencing early W3C drafts?

   Vlad: Not with reference to css-fonts.

   V: Glenn now saying he is interested in future compatibility.

   JD: All seem proxy arguments for making same origin restriction
   optional.

   Vlad; Specs intended to enable interoperability.

   Profile specs may differ, but this is not concern of W3C

   Tal: Have there been other css-font changes that have been backwards
   incompatible?

   JD: difficult to say due to problems of CSS2... not really
   implementable and hence removed for CSS3

  V: Comfortable keeping fomal objection on record and making the case
   to W3C

   JD: Is timing of objection re. css-fonts appropriate (not last call
   yet)

   V: for WOFF spec timing is appropriate

   <sgalineau> from his last message I do not think Glenn even
   understands that the requirement only applies to requests from the
   src descriptor

   JD: Concern that Hakon wants same origin moved from css-fonts to
   other spec

   JD But confident that can handleformal objection from Samsung

   JD: Will bring up issue at CSS WG call re. locaton of same origin;
   move to vote.

   Vlad will send draft liason message to CSS after this call.

   <Vlad> As part of the call I'd like to discuss and finalize this:
   [6]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2011Jun/00
   93.html

      [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2011Jun/0093.html

   Liason asks CSS WG to support css-fonts draft to spec same origin

   V: Open action items....

   <Vlad> action 93 - close

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 93

   <jdaggett> sorry, i have to run now...

   <Vlad> action 93?

   <trackbot> Sorry, bad ACTION syntax

   <Vlad> action 93, status?

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 93,

   <Vlad> action Vlad, status?

   <trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - Vlad,

   V: closing action item to draft liason w/ CSS WG

   (93)

   Tal: waiting for last call to end before closing test action

   V: three more action items with Chris Lilley. WIll wait to hear from
   him re. these.

   Other items?

   Chris: Anyone else going to TypeCon?

   John: yes

   Call ended.

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]
     _________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 14:42:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:16 UTC