RE: Updated WOFF2 spec and CTS planning

Hello Chris, all,

I am back from vacation and going through last week's backlog ...
Thank you very much for following up with the comments and additional proposed conformance statements - let's discuss them tomorrow in details during our telcon. I will send the agenda soon.
Sorry for not mentioning your regrets in the last telcon minutes, you did send them to the list and I simply forgot to scribe it on the IRC during the call.

I will contact you off-list regarding the CVS issue but I agree - we definitely need to sort it out (I am afraid that it may be related to handling the SSH on Windows, but I am not sure how to diagnose that).

Thank you,
Vlad


Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:15 PM
To: Levantovsky, Vladimir
Cc: w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)
Subject: Re: Updated WOFF2 spec and CTS planning

Hello Vlad,

[I'm just back from vacation today]

Monday, August 11, 2014, 7:04:17 PM, you wrote:


> Please see attached the updated spec for your review (sorry, my CVS 
> client acting up and I can’t get through to upload the spec).

We really need to get those CVS access issues sorted out. Let's discuss offlist, bring in systeam again if there is any change from last time, and if all else fails I can show you the method I use on Windows (command line CVS, in a cygwin shell).

The version you mailed in was based on the revision 1.6 CVS version.
There were changes since then (latest revision was 1.17). Luckily most of the subsequent changes were localized to the header material (style sheet and status changes) and to an appendix (MIME type) and references (updates) plus some small markup changes (HTML5 does not have the tt element).

To merge these, I started with Vlad's mailed-in copy (because the conformance identification changes are throughout the body of the text), re-added the MIME appendix, merged the references sections (Vlad's had CSS3 Fonts, cvs had an update to -01 versiun of Brotli Internet draft) and re-added the status section. I merged in the style changes from cvs with the ones added to do conformance styling in Vlad's copy.

I then checked this into CVS
http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/

W3C Editors Draft 18 August 2014

As far as I can see there were no changes to the normative body of the spec since the version on which Vlad's edits were made. I'm continuing to check with diff in case there were, in which case I report the,m on this list and will backport them to CVS.

CVS log to date is attached.

> The spec is marked up to identify the conformance requirements,

Its the same markup and styling as we used for WOFF 1.0, for those who were part of that effort. It means that each conformable statement has an ID so it can be linked to directly. In addition, there is a class indicating whether the conformance id on Authoring Tools, User Agents
9browsers) or the File Format itself. This affects how it is tested.

The styling adds a marker before each statement, and on hover highlighting which is also triggered if the statement is linked to directly.

> and
> after going through this exercise I am afraid that we are severely 
> “underspecified” when it comes to UA and authoring tool requirements 
> and testable assertions.

I agree. The benefit of marking and styling them is that we have a better idea of what needs to be added (or more commonly, reworded so that it becomes testable).

>  There is  still a lot of things to do on the spec side before we can 
> even remotely consider it ready for prime time.

Right. Note that these changes typically don't affect running code; they just make explicit the requirements so they can be tested and so we can prove that multiple implementations are interoperable.

> Note to Raph – if you can find some time and go through the spec with 
> your additional edits and changes, I’d really appreciate it.

Raph, I'm assuuming you will use CVS to do that.

> There are still grey areas regarding “nominal size” definition and 
> decoder behavior regarding memory handling  due to potential size 
> variations of decompressed and reconstructed font data.
>
> All, I’d also very much appreciate your input on what parts of the 
> spec we can tighten up to add new testable assertions and UA / decoder 
> requirements for CTS – once we complete this first step we should be 
> able to start the CTS planning  and decide what tests need to be in 
> place and how we can / should test each condition.

Yes. I'm starting on that today, but wanted to send this mail first so we are all working off the same copy http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/

W3C Editors Draft 18 August 2014


> I would like to get this discussion started now, before we meet for 
> our F2F on Sep. 16. Email your comments to the list, and let’s discuss 
> them during the telcon this week. FYI- I will be on vacation (and out 
> of reach) during the next week  so the next opportunity (other than 
> this week, i.e.) to discuss this would be Aug 27.

Okay.


--
Best regards,
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org

Received on Tuesday, 26 August 2014 20:26:58 UTC