Re: Conference call next week

Speaking of "font streaming", can we call it something else? :)
Spitballing, "incremental transfer"?

For context, I started asking some browser folk about how it might fit into
Chrome and "font streaming" repeatedly caused confusion because people have
a fairly specific definitions of streaming, such as it involving sequential
content that is used and discarded (think video).

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:56 AM Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Vlad,
>
> It would be good to have a call soonish. However, I'm off to a meeting in
> Germany on Friday this week, back Friday next week, so would not be able to
> attend a meeting next week (I actually am giving a talk at the time of the
> call).
>
> I agree that a better answer on validation-off-012 is needed.
>
> I hope to have good news on the advancement of WOFF 2.0 to W3C
> Recommendation (ie a publication date) very soon.
> On 2/21/2018 10:16 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
>
> Hello WG,
>
>
>
> I’ve been cancelling our scheduled conference calls for the last few weeks
> due to a lack of topics to discuss, and I am getting good at it (at
> canceling, i.e.).
>
> To break this developing habit, I’d like us to have the call next week to
> discuss where we are with things, in particular:
>
>
>
> -          What has happened with WOFF2 (it is almost a Rec!)
>
> The final call for approval of WOFF2 has closed on Feb. 18, and we’ve got
> 11 “yes” votes and 5 abstentions. Among those members who voted “yes” are
> Adobe, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Monotype, and Mozilla – thank you all who
> contributed _*and*_ voted to approve the final promotion!
>
> Mozilla included a comment as part of their response, where they raised a
> question about one particular item in the implementation report [1]. They
> noted that :
>
> “… the implementation report explains the User Agent non passing tests
> "The remaining nonpassing tests are believed to be fixed by ...", it would
> be good if the implementation report also explained why
> "validation-off-012" [2] appears to have no passing implementation (is it
> an optional feature? waiting for libraries to be updated? etc.) “ – this
> would be a good topic for a final WOFF2 discussion next week.
>
>
>
> -          What lies ahead?
>
> We’ve been dreaming of times when font data streaming (i.e., dynamic font
> subsets and dynamic incremental updates delivered just in time to make any
> content readable, with yet to be defined levels of native / API support for
> this functionality) may become a reality one day, and where all web
> developers and users can get any font they want delivered to a browser with
> minimal delays, regardless of languages used, font size, etc. Some members
> have expressed their desire to contribute their time and effort (and
> relevant IP, if applicable) to make this happen, but in order to gain more
> confidence that this activity has a fighting chance of success we need to
> hear at least a preliminary commitment from all major potential
> contributors – let’s use the call next week to chat about it and see where
> we are today!
>
>
>
> Looking forward to speaking with you all next week! If, for any reason,
> the call next week on Wednesday, Feb. 28th at our regularly scheduled
> time (7 am PST / 10 am EST / 4 pm CET) isn’t feasible (scheduling
> conflicts, life events getting in the way, etc.) – please let us know ahead
> of time. I will be traveling the week after next, and won’t be able to join
> the call on March 7, so we’d have to postpone it until March 14, if next
> week doesn’t work for you.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/WOFF2/Implementation.html
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/WOFF2/Decoder_results.html
>
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Lilley
> @svgeesus
> Technical Director @ W3C
> W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design
> W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media
>
>