- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 23:59:09 +0200
- To: WebFonts WG <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
Hello WebFonts,
http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-webfonts-minutes.html
WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
09 Jun 2015
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-webfonts-irc
Attendees
Present
Vlad, kuettel, RSheeter, sergey, ChrisL, Khaled
Regrets
Chair
vlad
Scribe
ChrisL
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]predefined tables
2. [5]cts plans
3. [6]font format test plan
4. [7]User Agent tests
5. [8]action items
* [9]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 09 June 2015
<scribe> scribenick: ChrisL
predefined tables
Vlad: we have more tables than bits. do we swap out a less used
one? or use a custom table?
... we need to add meta
... we have OT tables, all known, then AAT which are somewaht
used, then odd stuff
ChrisL: the graphite tables are also there
kuettel: we have seen fonts with those tables
ChrisL: (explains Graphite)
RSheeter: easiest is to leave it alone and use 4 bytes
Vlad: we excluded vendor-specific tables used in production but
not deployment
kuettel: when we did data gathering we only listed tables we
actually saw
Vlad: ok so known table flags are full so any other table will
use arbitrary tag flag plus actual tag, which is 4 bytes. no
impact on functionality
sergeym: we know we use it a lot and apple does too in their
system fonts. no data on frequency of use
... its okay
kuettel (shows list of observed table frequencies)
scribe: (looks for link)
s/fat fingers/agile, nimble fingers/
<kuettel> Here is the "Known Table Tags Proposal" thread from
earlier
<kuettel>
[10]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2014
Apr/0010.html
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2014Apr/0010.html
<kuettel> And here is the direct link to the spreadsheet with
the underlying proposal data
<kuettel>
[11]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/111MT0l7LOVqotAnMXD4
PMOm36jTPSznUigJPfxUYY_0/edit#gid=0
[11] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/111MT0l7LOVqotAnMXD4PMOm36jTPSznUigJPfxUYY_0/edit#gid=0
sergeym: meta is currently being defined
Vlad: next SC29 is in 2 weeks, could add to ammendment
sergeym: someone from Si Daniel's team is working on it
Vlad: (discussion of who on the team is doing it)
... could you ask who is doing the proposal? end of this week
is the deadline
sergeym: we can send a mail to the list about it
Vlad: just need a draft spec language, and no objections
kuettel: in
[12]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/111MT0l7LOVqotAnMXD4
PMOm36jTPSznUigJPfxUYY_0/edit#gid=0 the grey ones wwre
allocated early, the green ones are the new OT tables
... color font ones from v.3
... after that, AAT and Graphite which we did find in use
... color font ones expected to be in use later
... so changes would affect fonts in the wild
[12] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/111MT0l7LOVqotAnMXD4PMOm36jTPSznUigJPfxUYY_0/edit#gid=0
Vlad: cvt is widely used
RSheeter: should not reallocate ones in the OT spec
kuettel: so everything allocated is used
resolved: leave known tables bitfield as it is
sergeym: ok
Vlad: even glyf table could be defined both ways, not
forbidden. two parallel mechanisms to identify tables. no
prefferential treatment
cts plans
Vlad: aim is to have no undefined items at end of meeting
[13]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool
[13] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool
Vlad: get rid of the untestables and the no-longer a
requirement ones
[14]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-mustNotDupli
cateTables
[14] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-mustNotDuplicateTables
Vlad: it says physical tables, so if shared its in a collection
directory, but physical table must only be presented once
sergeym: need to check our tools do the right thing on all
shared tables. if not shared on the input font, do we want to
force the woff2 encoder to fail the check
... if it was shared in input font, it will be shared in woff
... meaning smae data
... but then if there is the same data, that could have been
shared
RSheeter: don't want to do that
ChrisL: no, don't check for that
Vlad: each font can have it s own name table, but its not the
tag but the offset that defines
ChrisL: don't want the wording to suggest a requirement for
identity/duplicate table checking
(general agreement)
RSheeter: physical tables is a poor term
sergeym: if original font shared it, woff2 should share it
RSheeter: should not end up with more table offsets than you
started with
Vlad: physical data must not be duplicated, is the intent
... clear this up by removing the mention of input font
ChrisL: works for me
kuettel: this is the only mention of physical table, which is
undefined
RSheeter: if tables in input have same offset, corresponding
entries in the woff should point to the same index
(discussion of bizarre cases with unused duplicate tables that
nothing points to)
(live spec editing)
<RSheeter> If two tables have the same offset in the input
font, the corresponding indices in the CollectionFontEntry in
the woff2 file MUST be the same.
(discussion on whether the validator should also look at the
input sfnt as well as the output woff, and custom vs. general
purpose validators)
ChrisL: edited
[15]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#m
ustNotDuplicateTables
[15] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustNotDuplicateTables
Vlad: make a dummy collection where all the entries are the
same
RSheeter: if a table is physically duplicated and one copy
unreferenced, it is a gap
(we need to check the gap requirement mentions collections)
<RSheeter>
[16]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-overlap-reje
ct
[16] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-overlap-reject
(discussion on testing for extraneous data between tables in
the compressed datastream)
Vlad: section 5 for compressed data format is the place for
extraneous data mention
RSheeter: add a 5.5 specifiying restrictions on tables not
having gaps
Vlad: or at the beginning section which applies to the whole
datablock
kuettel: we need two, one FF and one AT
(live spec editing)
discussion of
[17]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#m
ustTransformMultipeGlyfLoca
[17] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustTransformMultipeGlyfLoca
(editing
[18]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#m
ustVerifyGlyfLocaShared )
[18] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustVerifyGlyfLocaShared
(split into two tests)
[19]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#m
ustRejectSingleGlyfLocaShared seems okay
[19] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustRejectSingleGlyfLocaShared
(or maybe not)
sergey we are discussing
[20]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#m
ustRejectSingleGlyfLocaShared
[20] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustRejectSingleGlyfLocaShared
(we split into two tests)
discussing
[21]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-mustRecordCo
llectionEntryIndex
[21] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-mustRecordCollectionEntryIndex
[22]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#m
ustRecordCollectionEntryIndex
[22] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustRecordCollectionEntryIndex
RSheeter: in a number of places in the spec we need to explicit
about the array suffix
... such as starting at zero
<RSheeter> starting at zero is specifically for
[23]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-mustRecordCo
llectionEntryIndex (never explicitly said it started at 0)
[23] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-mustRecordCollectionEntryIndex
<RSheeter> Array suffixes would be nice (at least for me) in
[24]http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#glyf_table_format,
which tends to just use the name xxxStream to indicate it
repeats, eg "UInt32 nContourStream" vs "UInt32
nCountourStream[nContourStreamSize]"
[24] http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#glyf_table_format,
must use transform on glyph and loca seems to be missing from
spec
<RSheeter> <span class="conform at" id="mustUseTransform">
needs conform- prefix in id
necessity to reference RFC6919 averted
[25]http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919#section-4
[25] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919#section-4
<scribe> done with autoring tool test plan
font format test plan
[26]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#magicNum
ber
[26] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#magicNumber
RSheeter: OMG it's full of assertions
<RSheeter> *gasp*
<scribe> Meeting: WebFonts Working Group f2f, Woburn
sergeym, we are going through
[27]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format
[27] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format
<scribe> ACTION: RSheeter to make a new github repo with the
compiled output from the test generator [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-webfonts-minutes.html#action01
]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-180 - Make a new github repo with the
compiled output from the test generator [on Roderick Sheeter -
due 2015-06-16].
Khaled, we are going through
[29]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format
[29] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format
editing it live
(discussion on desirability of a test case where the font data
and the metadata are erroneously all compressed in one brotli
stream)
Khaled: its not impossible to make this
kuettel: would the extraneous tests not catch this
Khaled: such a font should be rejected by the validator
User Agent tests
[30]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent
[30] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent
(we discuss whether an unsorted table directory will cause a UA
to not render a font, for excample because OTS rejects it)
table directory order and table order are changed from
conformance requirements into a pointer to the OFF
specification
ChrisL: we have conflated general decoder tests and user agent
(browser) tests. We should split these into two conformance
classes. Especially for TTC which can be inspected and are
supported in software, but nit currently in browsers
... created
[31]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder
[31] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder
(discussion of extraneous-reject UA test)
(in particular that only inter-block extraneous data is covered
in this section.)
[32]https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustR
ejectExtraData
[32] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustRejectExtraData
(wondering what browsers do with a font with incorrect
checksums)
<scribe> ACTION: vlad to add decoder category to woff2, and add
to stylesheet [recorded in
[33]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-webfonts-minutes.html#action02
]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-181 - Add decoder category to woff2,
and add to stylesheet [on Vladimir Levantovsky - due
2015-06-16].
oh zakim, you lightweight
action-181?
<trackbot> action-181 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Add decoder
category to woff2, and add to stylesheet -- due 2015-06-16 --
OPEN
<trackbot> [34]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/181
[34] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/181
I edited conform.css to add a fourth class, dc for decoder
action items
close action-177
<trackbot> Closed action-177.
action-177?
<trackbot> action-177 -- Jonathan Kew to Propose two-bit per
table version number -- due 2015-06-03 -- CLOSED
<trackbot> [35]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/177
[35] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/177
[36]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open
[36] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open
action-171?
<trackbot> action-171 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Review
conformance reqs to ensure they can actually be implemented --
due 2015-06-11 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [37]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/171
[37] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/171
close action-171
<trackbot> Closed action-171.
action-818?
<trackbot> Sorry, but action-818 does not exist.
action-181?
<trackbot> action-181 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Add decoder
category to woff2, and add to stylesheet -- due 2015-06-16 --
OPEN
<trackbot> [38]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/181
[38] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/181
partly done (stylesheet part)
<scribe> ACTION: vlad to check with barbara re atypi-colocated
meeting [recorded in
[39]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-webfonts-minutes.html#action03
]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-182 - Check with barbara re
atypi-colocated meeting [on Vladimir Levantovsky - due
2015-06-16].
(adjourned, agenda finished)
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: RSheeter to make a new github repo with the
compiled output from the test generator [recorded in
[40]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-webfonts-minutes.html#action01
]
[NEW] ACTION: vlad to add decoder category to woff2, and add to
stylesheet [recorded in
[41]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-webfonts-minutes.html#action02
]
[NEW] ACTION: vlad to check with barbara re atypi-colocated
meeting [recorded in
[42]http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-webfonts-minutes.html#action03
]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
--
Best regards,
Chris Lilley
Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2015 21:59:15 UTC