RE: Telcon agenda for Wednesday Feb. 10

Great job Rod, thank you!
I was hoping we’d have enough time during the call to go through this live but you saved us all quite a bit of time by reviewing and editing the test pages.

I also added the description for mustLoadFontCollections this morning, and in the process of checking the other conformance cases found one bug in the spec where the conformance id tag was misspelled – if you click on mustClearEmptyBBox link and it brings you nowhere – refresh the WOFF2 spec page as the older version’s likely been cached.

E-meet you all soon,
Vlad


From: Roderick Sheeter [mailto:rsheeter@google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 3:33 PM
To: Chris Lilley
Cc: Levantovsky, Vladimir; w3c-webfonts-wg (public-webfonts-wg@w3.org)
Subject: 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<mailto: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