- From: Roderick Sheeter <rsheeter@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:42:45 -0800
- To: WebFonts WG <public-webfonts-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABscrrG_SWkMOgUBDBVfJYH_Ld4u6HAHCH_5gTnTH8H1CZ=xzw@mail.gmail.com>
https://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-webfonts-minutes.html
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
20 Jan 2016
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-webfonts-irc
Attendees
Present
Vlad, RSheeter, khaled, kuettel, chrisl, sergeym
Regrets
Ken_Lunde, Jonathan_Kew
Chair
vlad
Scribe
rsheeter
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Action Items
2. [5]Candidate Recommendation
3. [6]More Topics
* [7]Summary of Action Items
* [8]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<Vlad> Guys, I am hoping for the best but W3C hhas changed
their WebEx setup due to some issues with unauthorized usage
and it now requires the presense of a host to start a call
David and I are on the phone; seems to be working (?)
<scribe> scribenick: rsheeter
Vlad: font media type is ongoing @ IETF
Action Items
action-116?
<trackbot> action-116 -- David Kuettel to Decoder performance
analysis on mobile devices -- due 2015-10-31 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [9]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/116
[9] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/116
(not done but still relevant; push date to early April to allow
for Chrome 49 + some time to examine data)
action-186?
<trackbot> action-186 -- Roderick Sheeter to Try time (decode)
and size for null glyf/loca xform vs regular vs woff1 -- due
2015-10-14 -- OPEN
<trackbot> [10]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/186
[10] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/186
Rod: Wasn't happy with test with minor woff2 changes; lots of
unnecessary copying and such. Need to make more changes, bump
date out.
action-191?
<trackbot> action-191 -- Roderick Sheeter to Come up with
pseudo code for the uint base128 description -- due 2015-12-09
-- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [11]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/191
[11] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/191
action-192?
<trackbot> action-192 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Insert "4 *
floor( (numglyphs + 31) / 32)" -- due 2015-12-09 --
PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [12]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/192
[12] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/192
action-193?
<trackbot> action-193 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Known tags
must use known tag format -- due 2015-12-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [13]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/193
[13] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/193
action-194?
<trackbot> action-194 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Investigate
the handling of empty glyph records and how it affects the
'hmtx' transform -- due 2015-12-23 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> [14]http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/194
[14] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/194
Vlad: turned out 'glyf' needed clarification as well
<Vlad> Recent diffs:
[15]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/Overview.html.
diff?r1=1.74;r2=1.75;f=h
[15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.74;r2=1.75;f=h
(was calling for 0-contour glyph rather than a "real" empty
glyph)
Vlad: Reference impl does empty glyphs already. Spec has been
updated to call for empty glyph.
<Vlad> Thanks CHris, we are ok
(discussion of lsb's for empty glyphs)
(should we ignore lsb or require 0)
Chris: Would someone do that on purpose?
Rod: if the field doesn't do anything nobody would have worried
about it before
... so question is, can lsb for empty ever actually do anything
or is it completely meaningless
Vlad: Couldn't confirm that in asking around; safer to not nuke
even for empty. (paraphrased slightly)
close action-191
<trackbot> Closed action-191.
close action-192
<trackbot> Closed action-192.
close action-193
<trackbot> Closed action-193.
close action-194
<trackbot> Closed action-194.
Candidate Recommendation
Vlad: Chris, how do we get there?
Chris: we need to be able to show comments, discussion, related
changes, etc
Vlad: All ye against moving to candidate recommendation speak
now!
... (bear in mind further changes become harder to make)
Chris: We have to show changes would not invalidate a previous
review
Vlad: only expected change is adding description of recent
changes
Resolved to move to Candidate Recommendation
(much rejoicing)
More Topics
close action-174
<trackbot> Closed action-174.
(based on discussion with Chris)
Chris: Working away on issues, mostly minor, around font media
types. Mostly using github issues.
<ChrisL> [16]https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont
[16] https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont
ChrisL: helpful if this WG can review/comment on the issues
... maybe email list occasionally as well
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [17]scribe.perl version
1.144 ([18]CVS log)
$Date: 2016/01/20 15:40:57 $
__________________________________________________________
[17] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Scribe.perl diagnostic output
[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34
Check for newer version at [19]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/
scribe/
[19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/
Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)
Found ScribeNick: rsheeter
Inferring Scribes: rsheeter
Default Present: Vlad, RSheeter, khaled, kuettel, chrisl, sergeym
Present: Vlad RSheeter khaled kuettel chrisl sergeym
Regrets: Ken_Lunde Jonathan_Kew
Found Date: 20 Jan 2016
Guessing minutes URL: [20]http://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-webfonts-minutes.
html
People with action items:
[20] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-webfonts-minutes.html
WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.
[End of [21]scribe.perl diagnostic output]
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 15:43:15 UTC