Re: Proposed agenda for WebFonts WG F2F

Thank you again for organizing the meeting, it should be terrific!

As we discussed in the working group (telcon) meeting yesterday,
perhaps the following additions/refinements to the agenda:

o  Start with a demo of WOFF 2.0 in action (implementation based on
the earlier proposal)

o  Compression options (while LZMA was initially proposed, another
leading candidate recommended by the Google compression team has
emerged)

o  Font MIME types discussion (currently the web font format MIME
types (for .eot, .ttf, .woff, .woff2, etc) are neither consistent or
intuitive, and as such we have a great opportunity to introduce a new
top-level mime type and improve on the situation).

o  Follow on in-person meeting (perhaps we could explore a follow on
meeting around ATypI in October?)

Thank you!

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir
<Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote:
> Hello WG,
>
>
>
> Here is the first draft F2F agenda for our discussion next week. Please
> consider attending the next week telcon and please (for those who didn’t do
> it yet) confirm your attendance for the F2F in Portland (Aug, 22) at
> TypeCon.
>
>
>
> Tentative agenda:
>
> -          Introductions
>
> -          Review of the WOFF 2.0 Draft Evaluation report (in anticipation
> that we may actually have it ready before the meeting);
>
> -          Planning of future WOFF 2.0 work items:
>
> a)      LZMA compression specification work (this is the one that will
> likely require more resources so please have it discussed with your
> compression experts, if possible);
>
> b)      Preprocessing spec changes (compared to MTX spec as a baseline),
> detailed next steps and planning specification work (will need to chose an
> editor);
>
> c)       Suggestion - revisit the discussion of compression efficiency
> (per-table vs. per-font) and HTTP byte-range support (preliminary results
> collected by Google show that compressing a font as a single block improves
> both the compression ratios and [more so] compression / decompression
> timing).
>
> -          Discussion of Adam Twardoch’s OFF/X proposal:
>
> a)      Summary discussion of the proposal (Adam?);
>
> b)      Feasibility / level of interest / obstacles – this work item is out
> of scope of the WG according to the existing charter, but it is possible to
> update and get a new approval vote for the charter to extend its scope and
> include new deliverables;
>
> c)       Possible ways to implement – a normative “OFF webfont profile” vs.
> “W3C WebFonts Implementation Guidelines” vs. informative “OFF webfonts best
> practices” (selection of the implementation target may have an effect on the
> choice of the venue: ISO, W3C, etc.).
>
> -          AOB
>
>
>
> Please feel free to suggest revisions / new items for discussion.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>

Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 17:28:03 UTC