- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 19:24:34 +0200
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
- CC: "public-webfonts-wg@w3.org Group" <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Hello Vladimir, Tuesday, September 24, 2013, 10:33:37 PM, you wrote: > I would like to spend some time tomorrow (and the remaining time we > have until the F2F) to discuss the F2F agenda. Our call tomorrow > will be held at regularly scheduled time: Unfortunately I am likely to miss the call tonight, sorry. I won't know if I can make todays slot until shortly before. > Proposed draft F2F agenda: > > - Introductions > > - Review the draft WOFF 2.0 Evaluation Report; > > - Updates on the new compression technology (comparison of > the compression gains, compression / decompression timing, codec / > algorithm changes, etc.). Decide on the final home for this spec work and how to proceed. > > - Planning specification work (both for the pre-processing > spec and the new compression) – estimated timeline / deliverables, etc. > > - If possible (i.e. if we have compression data to rely > on) – revisit the discussion on “per table” vs. “per font” > compression (HTTP byte range support, cost/benefit analysis, etc.). > > - Time permitting – revisit the discussion about top level > media type for fonts and whether / how to proceed. > That agenda looks good to me. I would hope to have access to at least some numerical data for a woff1 to woff2-brotli comparison before the meeting, just to get the evaluation report more fleshed out. At present it just says what we are *not* doing (and why); its better if it has some info on what we are now doing, and to what extent that is better than woff1. And this would give us a better report to review at the f2f. Whether woff2-brotli is less good than woff2-lzma and by how much is interesting, but is not the primary thing we were asked to do as a group - improve woff1. -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 17:24:43 UTC