Re: Telcon agenda for Wednesday Feb. 10

FYI, I updated colors in the wiki to hopefully better reflect actual
status.

NEED REVIEW
============
UserAgent

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustAcceptAllTransforms
- appears to be implemented. marked needs review; left it alone.

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustBeRejected-FailTransform
- 'glyf' transform 3 is now OK

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustLoadFontCollection
- not implemented or described. There is no UA that supports this yet.
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustCheckLSBFlags
- appears to be implemented. marked needs review

AuthoringTool
    http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-mustUseTransform - bad
link to spec; did we remove it when we allowed null transform

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustClearEmptyBBox
- not implemented or described

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustCheckLeftSideBearings
- marked needs review; not sure why as it just says see next test

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustEliminateLSBs
- not implemented or described

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustCheckLSBAllGlyfTables
- not implemented or described

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustNotApplyLSBTransformForOTC
- not implemented or described

FileFormat
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#mustTransformTables
- bad link to spec; did we remove it when we allowed null transform

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#transformFlagsMustBeSet
- marked needs review

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#reservedFlagsMustBeZero
- marked needs review

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#mustBeBrotliCompressedMetadata
- we test with a zipped metadata. Do we really need to "Make a test font
with metadata block compressed in the same brotli stream as table data.
Ensure the validator rejects it."? - sounds like that should be caught by
overlapping index checks as the metadata would have to point into the
compressed block.

Decoder
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder#mustReconstructLSBs
- marked needs review

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder#mustLoadFontCollection
- marked needs review


MARKED IMPLEMENTED
====================
(gray => black)
UserAgent
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#extraneous-reject

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustAccept255UInt16

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustRejectInvalidBase128

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustRejectExtraData

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustRejectNonEmptyBBox

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustReconstructLoca

AuthoringTool

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustEmitSingleEntryDirectory

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustNotDuplicateTables

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustTransformMultipleGlyfLoca

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustVerifyGlyfLocaShared

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustRejectSingleGlyfLocaShared

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustPreserveFontOrder

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustRecordCollectionEntryIndex
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustRemoveDSIG
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-AuthoringTool#mustSetBit11

FileFormat
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#mustRejectExtraData
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#OriginalLocaSize
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#OriginalLocaSize
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#tableOrdering
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#private-padalign
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Format#private-end

Decoder

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder#mustRestoreCollectionOffsetTables
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder#mustFixCollection
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder#mustRestoreFontOrder
    https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder#mustProduceOFF

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder#mustCalculateCheckSum

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder#mustRecalculateHeadCheckSum

https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-Decoder#mustRecordLocaOffsets

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

> Hello Vlad,
>
> Tuesday, February 9, 2016, 9:54:21 PM, you wrote:
>
>
> Hello WG,
>
> We will have our regularly scheduled call tomorrow. I’d like to use this
> time to resolve any remaining CTS issues and but please feel free to
> suggest other topics you would like to discuss, if any.
>
> I would like to discuss the disposition of comments on WOFF 2.0, which we
> need to have ready as part of the request for Candidate Recommendation.
>
> Mostly it is in good shape but we are missing a couple of final replies
> from commentors, to say that they are okay with our handling of the issue.
> Okay, issue 1 is a typo so whatever; I am thinking of issue 4 in
> particular, and a response on issue 6 would be nice too.
>
> https://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/DoC/issues-2015.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *-- Best regards, Chris  Lilley Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain*
>