RE: WOFF-ACTION-196: Review treatment of empty glyphs vs 0-contour glyphs

Folks,

After spending some time musing on the subject matter I decided it might be a good idea (but you be the judge) to at least mention the degenerate case of "glyph with zero outlines" in the spec. One thing leads to another and I ended up adding a new conformance test case where an authoring tool would have to check that glyph with zero contours has no bounding box (i.e. all values are zeros) and reject the input font if this is not the case. (see http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-mustRejectNonEmptyBBox) 
Once this check is performed, the existing test case (http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-mustClearEmptyBBox) is now extended to cover both empty glyph records and glyphs with zero contours.

I realize that having a glyph record with zero contours is highly unlikely (but not impossible) so having the spec mention both cases would be justified, if only to prevent an uncertainty associated with the undefined cases and possible malicious content.
Comments?
(Once I hear you say "Yeah, let's keep this in the spec", my next step would be to come up with the test descriptions for both cases.)

On a separate issue regarding our scheduled telcon tomorrow - any progress to talk about? Considering that some folks are on vacation this week and the low level of WG activities that require group discussions - should we cancel the call tomorrow and postpone it until March 2nd? (Reminder - I will be traveling next week.)

Thank you,
Vlad


-----Original Message-----
From: WebFonts Working Group Issue Tracker [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 4:44 PM
To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
Subject: WOFF-ACTION-196: Review treatment of empty glyphs vs 0-contour glyphs

WOFF-ACTION-196: Review treatment of empty glyphs vs 0-contour glyphs

http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/196


Assigned to: Vladimir Levantovsky

Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2016 21:20:13 UTC