- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 01:17:16 +0200
- To: WebFonts WG <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Hello folks, * Spec edits / actions After checking in Vlad's edits, I completed ACTION-131 by copying over from WOFF 1.0 the relevant testable assertions for the metadata block. http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#Metadata That action is now in pending review state. Two other actions (actually completed some months ago) were moved to pending review ACTION-125 Reach out on patent for brotli ACTION-128 Report on svg binaryxml as a preprocessing step * Test plan For WOFF 1.0, we had a wiki page for the user agent, file format and authoring tool assertions while we developed tests. https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan-UserAgent https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan-Format https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan-AuthoringTool I have started similar pages for WOFF 2.0, extracting the testable assertions out and for a few of them, adding suggestions on how they could be tested. Anyone in the WG can edit the wiki. https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool I volunteer to lead the test effort. I hope we can re-use a lot of the TTX-based Python framework that Tal Leming made for WOFF 1.0. I suggest that the user agent tests use the same test harness and automatic result gathering/report generating framework that the CSS WG uses; our test metadata is the same as theirs. * Agenda+ Process change The W3C process recently changed, the procedure for Last Call and Candidate Rec has been moved to a single stage. I'd like to briefly outline the changes and then we can decide as a group whether to continue to use the old process (which we can for up to the next two years, if desired) or the new one for WOFF 2.0. * Agenda+ Going to Last Call As an outcome for the Barcelona meeting, I would like to either have a minuted decision to go to Last Call, or else a detailed plan for what exactly needs to be fixed before we can go to Last Call. Either way we should publish the Editors Draft to /TR as there have been important changes since the last publication. Besides asking for wider review (which we have to track, respond to, and document), that step also triggers a patent exclusion period, and also means we should submit the Internet Media type to IANA for registration. * Agenda+ Brotli Internet Draft Draft-01 expires November 16, 2014. It needs to be refreshed before then (and ideally, updated). It would be good to discuss next steps for wider review, which is a prerequisite for moving from Internet Draft to Informational RFC. Showing that there is more than one implementation is part of that. -- Best regards, Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Sunday, 14 September 2014 23:17:19 UTC