- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 10:56:54 -0500
- To: public-webfonts-wg@w3.org
My rough notes from initial read: > Using incremental transfer may not always be beneficial, depending on the characteristics of the font and the content being rendered. Using incremental transfer may not always be beneficial, depending on the characteristics of the font, the network, and the content being rendered. Move the "does not break layout" up to the end of the introduction. Add variable fonts where only a subset of axes are needed to 1.2 > @font-face’s that include the incremental tech keyword should also include a unicode-range descriptor. This informs the client which codepoints are available in the font It says which codepoints the stylesheet author wants to use. It makes no promises about what range to font covers (it does not claim complete coverage of the range). I still wonder if it is best to order the spec as bottom-up (ie starting with types and building up from there). It means that someone who has read the intro and wants more detail has to read past a bunch of detail to get section 6 to have more understanding. Two new tables - are these private extensions or will they be standardized through SC29? The question "I have a font and want to make it incremental, how do I do that" is not clearly answered. The spec kind of assumes it already exists, and concentrates on how to use it. > As with OpenType all fields As with the rest of OpenType, all fields > More detailed descriptions of each algorithm can be found in the proceeding sections. More detailed descriptions of each algorithm can be found in the following sections. We don't say that the urls for patches must use https, and we should. Changes is since https://www.w3.org/TR/2022/WD-IFT-20220628/ but should be split, because we want changes since https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/WD-IFT-20230530/. See https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/WD-IFT-20230530/#changes Add content to privacy section, we can't say nothing has been reported. At minimum we need to look at https://www.w3.org/TR/2023/WD-IFT-20230530/#priv and either state that it no longer applies, or include it. Security section can say nothing has been reported. On 2024-01-31 20:18, Garret Rieger wrote: > I've published an early draft of the new IFT specification which will > eventually replace the prior patch subset and range request > approaches. The draft can be found here: > https://garretrieger.github.io/IFT/Overview.html > <https://garretrieger.github.io/IFT/Overview.html> > The draft is incomplete, most notably missing specification for the > format 2 mapping table. However, it is complete enough to demonstrate > how the full approach will work. I figured I'd send this out in > advance of the working group call next week, where we could discuss > any early feedback on the draft. -- Chris Lilley @svgeesus Technical Director @ W3C W3C Strategy Team, Core Web Design W3C Architecture & Technology Team, Core Web & Media
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2024 15:56:58 UTC