Telcon meeting minutes, Oct. 23rd

http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-webfonts-minutes.html
and as plain text below:

                               - DRAFT -

                 WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

23 Oct 2013

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-webfonts-irc

Attendees

   Present
   Regrets
          John_Hudson, Jonathan_Kew

   Chair
          SV_MEETING_CHAIR

   Scribe
          raph

Contents

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

   <trackbot> Date: 23 October 2013

   <Vlad> scribenick: raph

   recap of agenda

   one extra item: discussion of TTC

   we have relatively complete minutes of F2F meeting, most
   discussion captured

   AI follow-up for raph: contact IETF reps at Google

   raph has contacted Google reps with dual IETF/W3C affiliation,
   no response yet

   Brotli encoder reference implementation has been published as
   open source

   announcement email was sent to list, probably held for
   moderation

   doesn't make sense to review evaluation report for now, as
   chris lilley is not here

   waiting on chris lilley to finalize draft

   TTC issue has been discussed in detail in 2010 on wg reflector

   TTC can be used as webfonts, maybe some quirks need to be
   worked out

   at the moment, can only reference font #1 in the resource.
   Nothing in CSS that lets us reference other fonts

   This is the biggest issue that holds back usage of TTC

   container format would need to support multiple font headers

   vlad: WOFF 1 attempts to replicate TTF header, this wouldn't be
   a problem with whole-stream compression

   raph: would affect TTC because of preprocessing step

   vlad: could Raph investigate how the preprocessing step would
   affect ttc files

   raph: yes

   adam twardoch suggested that ttc fonts may be useful to
   represent multiple color schemes for a color font

   fonts in the collection would share outlines but have different
   color palette tables

   ttc is currently niche in usage

   vlad: it is something we should support

   kuettel: are we talking about just making the font format
   support ttc, or also pushing out changes all the way to the
   browser?

   vlad: we should make the wire format support it first, then
   consider other changes

   <Vlad>
   [5]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0217.h
   tml

      [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0217.html

   css is currently biggest obstacle

   raph: concern about backwards compatibility: css has no way to
   conditionally use TTC if supported, fall back to separate TTF
   fonts if not

   <Vlad> ACTION: raph to investigate the TTC support as part of
   the WOFF 2.0 pre-processing mechanism [recorded in
   [6]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-122 - Investigate the ttc support as
   part of the woff 2.0 pre-processing mechanism [on Raph Levien -
   due 2013-10-30].

   so backwards compatibility story is not as good as for woff2,
   where fallback to woff1 is transparent

   raph: now is a good time to consider wire format changes,
   because we're going to be making changes to the wire format to
   simplify per-table vs whole-font and flate vs brotli switches

   cslye: decision to do whole font only (not provide a per table
   option) seemed pretty definitive in f2f

   vlad: recap of report on media types

   vlad has a sense that people are much more open to new media
   type registrations than before

   previously, whenever any proposal for a top-level type came to
   iana, there would be immediate argument against

   this is what sunk the proposal in 2004, but doesn't seem to be
   the case any more

   vlad: it's likely to be approved only if we have convincing
   evidence that it will make things significantly than the status
   quo

   main criticism is: what difference does it make what the actual
   string identifier is? is existing identifier good enough?

   we would need to provide an answer to this as part of the
   proposal

   vlad: coming up with "bulletproof" justification of why
   font/foo is better than application/font-foo is difficult

   cslye agrees

   vlad: larry masinter might be a useful resource for this
   discussion within adobe; he's been actively involved in ietf
   and standards work
   ... plea to group: can we find a person to help us make the
   case that font/ is superior?
   ... once we have that, actually drafting the proposal will
   probably be the easiest task

   much existing prior work, including application/font-sfnt (was
   accepted with minimal controversy)

   vlad will be at iso meeting next week

   let's try to do as much as possible on email list

   easier to refer to, and easier for people not able to join the
   phone call

   won't have call next week

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: raph to investigate the TTC support as part of
   the WOFF 2.0 pre-processing mechanism [recorded in
   [7]http://www.w3.org/2013/10/23-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]

   [End of minutes]