Telcon minutes, April 9

Huge thanks to Kenji-san for scribing during today's call!

He did an excellent job which we now have a chance to enjoy by reading minutes online at http://www.w3.org/2014/04/09-webfonts-minutes.html
or as plain text below.

I forgot to mention during the call that we had two regrets from Chris L. and Jonathan.
Present: David, Raph, Kenji-san, Christopher S. and Vlad on the phone + John H. on IRC.

                               - DRAFT -

                 WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

09 Apr 2014

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/04/09-webfonts-irc

Attendees

   Present
   Regrets
   Chair
          SV_MEETING_CHAIR

   Scribe
          KenjiBX

Contents

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

   <trackbot> Date: 09 April 2014

   <Vlad> zakim this will be 3668

   Can provide an update regarding CORS support in Chrome OS
   (crbug.com/286681). In short, we agreed to work on it.

   Schedule: [5]http://www.chromium.org/developers/calendar

      [5] http://www.chromium.org/developers/calendar

   Plan for M36: metrics and warnings in devtools

   M37: will make the change except if we see huge impact we'll
   put a stronger warning and make the change in M38

   metrics that indicate that we can just skip the intermediate
   step would be welcomed.

   - Next Topic -

   WOFF 2.0 discussion about final changes

   Raph: I see 2 issues that would potentially affect
   compatibility. Other issues are editorial
   ... glyph transformation optional or not. Population of known
   tags
   ... need something that maps a number to a four byte tag
   ... KBX would you talk about Chrome's schedule?

   Vlad: meaning of compatibility breaking?

   Raph: re reference implementation
   ... and chrome beta

   KenjiBX: postponing WOFF 2.0 in M35 given the risk. Would like
   to target M36. Hopefully we can reach out consensus during that
   time frame.

   Vlad: from the procedural point of view. Spec as it exists
   today can't be considered as working draft.
  ... so it's difficult to talk about compatibility breaking
   change at this stage (not yet stable).
   ... shipping WOFF 2.0 too early would limit our ability to make
   changes to the spec

   Raph: we agree with this and are open to improve the spec. That
   said we really want to get something out there. It feels
   possible that the number of controversial points (while being
   true that it's been a short period of time), is very close to
   convergence point.
   ... dealing with UA sniffing is not a great place to be in
   which is why we made the decision to postpone our intent to
   ship WOFF 2.0 in Chrome for M35.
   ... (paraphrasing) there is reason to believe that we'll reach
   a stable state before an official CR status.

   Vlad: (referring to other specs; some of the changes might be
   expanding instead of breaking changes)

   Raph: agreeing that there are different levels of compatibility
   breaking changes. Practical consequence: don't encourage folks
   to publish fonts in the format until the spec reaches a stable
   state.

   Vlad: did a workshop covering advanced feat of fonts.
   everything was fine on handouts but got complaints as things
   started not working later due to changes to specs.

   Raph: I would like to do a concerted call for reviewing the
   spec: helping implementers with a clear spec, and confirming
   that everyone is ok with the decision.

   Vlad: WOFF 2.0 so far is only a creature that the WG knows
   about (needs more attention, Vlad can reach out to more folks
   to bring more advices to the spec).
   ... (explaining the w3c process; Last Call where members are
   expected to exert a high level of scrutinity)

   David: do you think we could target a date for the different
   stages?

   Raph: I believe that we should be able to arrive at the FPWD
   rather quickly

   Vlad: I agree, I believed we would be able to do this today but
   we're missing key members

   David: would it be possible to reach out consensus over email
   this week or so?

   Vlad: (yes)

   Raph: (would be great)

   David: recapitulating the 2 issues? Anything else?

   Vlad: only those 2; the remaining are editorial ones

   Raph: I would like that question to be asked on the ML to
   confirm this understanding. I believe that other open questions
   were resolved but I want to make sure that this isn't a
   misunderstanding. This is the perfect time for these concerns
   to get heard.

   Vlad: share the feeling on the closed topics. Re table tags,
   should be as inclusive as possible

   Raph: yes, we only need a mapping

   David: will take this action.

   Vlad: Johnathan expressed some concerns on one topic; replied
   but didn't heard anything back. Unclear if he agreed or not.

  Raph: (we should clear this up)

   Vlad: have 2 arguments: WOFF 2.0 is a font transport mechanism
   and would be nice to use the same vocabulary/data-types;
   ... (the other one about ambiguity based on past experience)

   David: going back to pre-processing? Do we need some home work
   before discussing it (collecting data)

   Raph: don't see the need for it

   Vlad: will ask Johnathan's opinion

   David: table tags? Resolve over email? Can take a first pass.
   ... will take this action item.

   Vlad: I see you already have some mapping. These should be OK.

   David: is that it?

   (lost track a bit)

   Vlad: will try his best to collapse 3 descriptions into 1

   Raph: will run into the same issue for the triples. An English
   narrative for each one or those would not work.
   ... the most important is to make sure that the implementers
   can understand it.

   Vlad: agree.
   ... (that's a wrap)
   ... anything else?

   KenjiBX: CSS unicode-range in Chrome: still a bug, working on
   fixing it for M36.

   <raph> Vlad: praising Kenji's work as a scribe and wishing him
   present for more calls

   <raph> kenji: will be difficult in the future because of
   timezones

Summary of Action Items

   [End of minutes]