WebFonts Working Group Teleconference -- 05 May 2010

<trackbot> Date: 05 May 2010

<scribe> scribe: Chris

<scribe> ScribeNick: ChrisL

trackbot, status

<jdaggett> heh

The call-in telephone bridge details:

+1.617.761.6200 (Boston) or

+33.4.89.06.34.99 (Nice) or

+44.117.370.6152 (Bristol)

conference code 3668 ("FONT")

<jdaggett> m+

<jfkthame> 0845397... is jfkthame

<jfkthame> btw, jonothan is really spelled "jonathan" :)

<jfkthame> n/p

<jdaggett> yes, that's why jdaggett is better...

Administrivia

Chris explains the bots, a little

Vlad: welcome everyone
... good to have the group start

Develop and approve the work plan

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Apr/0019.html

Vlad: once we have a workplan agreed we can start. Any suggestions?

Chris: Looks good

Christopher: new to this and mainly listening right now

Vlad: so first item was to Discuss and finalize the WOFF specification
... run through the text, review text for areas of improvement eg more future proof
... whether the metasdata definition is sufficient
... for the end users and exposable by the user agents

Chris: also good to identify all the conformance statements

Christopher: Is WOFF web only? Meaning of embedding bits. Keeping metadata in sync

Vlad: Not up to our group to make WOFF web only. No significant power to control how it is used

<jdaggett> EPUB

<vlad> ePub developed by IDPF

Vlad: EPUB uses HTML and CSS it could use WOFF as well
... main focus is to make it suitable for the Web use. If its used elsewhere that is out of scope

Jonathan: EPUB has no benefit to use WOFF. Its a zip file so just add a OT file to the zip

Christopher: Informational metadata could be useful though

Joanathan: guess that is true but could go in ePUB metadata as well

Chris: license agreement may be different for OT and WOFF

Jonathan: ePub is neither print nor Web really

Vlad: Its an exampl eof Web tech being used in non-Web contexts. Just an example

Sylvain: does ePub require all resources to be local?

Vlad: reasonable to assume any connected device will get online resources
... bottom line, we make WOFF to be used on the Web and if it gets used elsewhere we can't really control that

Chris: what was the point about metadata in sync?

Christopher: OT has tables and information, some people were talking about duplicating some of that in the metadata. Wasn't sure if that should be required to sync with OT table data

Tal: Talked about this a lot when writing spec and came up with use cases where the dayta would not be in sync
... eg a type service that adds a different license

Vlad: fonts contributed by individual typographers and the license reflects the EULA under which it was sold, so the vendor info goes to the foundry selling it not the designer

Christopher: agree that there are cases where they would not be in sync

Vlad: extended metadata, no real control on what goes in there so its hard to mandate as its extensible by design
... embedding bits are a bone of contention, no good understanding on how they apply to different scenarios

JohnH: Issue with embedding bits in OS/2 table wrt webfonts came out of EOT which made an explicit association
... and the tools looked at the embedding bits for permission to make EOT
... in the 10 year period between EOT and now, the use of embedding bits has become much more focussed on PDF. Foundries see them in that way
... which does not reflect licensing for web use
... so use of embedding bits gives the wrong impression to customers. Can be helped by better metadata and clearer licenses
... should we make explicit that embedding bits are not relevant to WOFF
... most borowsers than link to raw OT ignore embedding bits
... got impression from Si Daniels that Microsoft not so keen on that

Vlad: Two major points, one that embeddingbits should have no impact on usrr agents, assume the content creator read the license.
... no need for UA to doubt user intention
... seconfd point is that embedding is an indication of what is setby the license, so its up tothe author to check the license
... differnet for static content or for user editable content
... should be informative not normative
... its toolate to look at the embedding bits once the font has been served

JohnH; Agreed, its mainly to clarify the situation and direct people at EULA not the embedding bits

scribe: should tools for creating WOGFF look at these, i wou;d argue not
... also the reference to document embedding is not clear in the OT spec

Christopher: main concern is tool s that generate woff
... sounds like we all agree that user agents ignore embedding bits, so should we put it in the WOFF spec

Jonathan: (scribe missed)

JohnH: Si does not believe the OT spec needs to be changed here
... believes embedding does not count document serving.

Chris: Is the ISO OFF spec clearer?

(apparently its is identical)

Vlad: getting back to the workplan at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2010Apr/0019.html
... we can of course discuss the technical details, but later
... including conformance and how it impacts same-origin
... active discussion on that point on the mailing list

JohnH: Is any draft outline of the conformance spec yet?

Vlad: Its ahead of us
... some items in the WOFF spec that indicate conformance

JohnH: Agree with Chris to identify conformance in whats expected of user agents

Vlad: agreed, and also suggest we look at any optional components to be sure we are not missing anything by making it optional which creates uncertainty . Prefer to avoid optional components as much as possible

Chris: comments from mozilla on direction of referencing

Vlad; also we will find spec changes by making tests

JohnH: What are the factors that affect this?

<jfkthame> tabatkins: that'll be jdaggett's baby, i think!

jdaggett: Not clear exactly what the issues are and how long CSS3 webfonts will take

<tabatkins> Sorry!

Chris: can we help move CSS3 fonts forward?

jdagget: a common web format that is cross browser clearly helps

Vlad: one dependency, it would be good to see CSS3 Font mandate WOFF for example
... other than this any other dependencies?

jdaggett: no, some of these are undecided. No dependency as such. But if WOFF is to be supported by all user agents

Chris: dependency from the @font-face syntax

jdaggett: some stuff in CSS2 @font-face is dropped

vlad: WOFF tests should not test application of opentype layout features, outside scope

Chris: (example of woff tools that drop important tables)

jdaggett: think that is a transient bug in chrome, as the tables are difficult to validate

vlad; agree, we are making the delivery format and the user agent will extract it and do something with it but at that point we are outside our scope

JohnH: Having WOFF specified will lead to making solid test cases for CSS3. not sure how it relates to the conformance spec
... difficult to test fonts to look for cross browser compat as the services are doing PS to TT for example to serve as EOT so getting WOFF out there will be very helpful
... likely WOFF gets specced before CSS3 is done

Vlad: getting to the top of the hour.

action; vlad draft something about embedding bits

<scribe> ACTION: vlad to draft something about embedding bits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - vlad

trackbot, status?

<scribe> ACTION: vladimir to draft something about embedding bits [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-1 - Draft something about embedding bits [on Vladimir Levantovsky - due 2010-05-12].

action-1?

<trackbot> ACTION-1 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to draft something about embedding bits -- due 2010-05-12 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/1

Chris: (demonstrates treackbot etc)
... Have made a pubrules-compliant wrapper so first public working draft should be easy

vlad: other action items?

<scribe> ACTION: chris to put the action plan on the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/05/05-webfonts-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Put the action plan on the wiki [on Chris Lilley - due 2010-05-12].

Erik: My first w3 call - cellphones ok?

Chris: yes if there is a quiet environment

Vlad; Thanks for joining, see you next week, and on email

adjourned

- DRAFT -

WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

05 May 2010

Attendees

Contents

Administrivia

Develop and approve the work plan

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output