WebFonts Working Group Teleconference -- 09 Feb 2011

<trackbot> Date: 09 February 2011

uh-oh, Zakim is confused

<jfkthame> "this conference is restricted at this time" ?

zakim thinks our booking is at the later time, 10pm france not 4pm france

http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20110209

ok, zakim is not confused. the agenda was confused about which week this is

<jfkthame> aha

<jfkthame> ok, ttyl i guess!

last week was the earlier time, but last week was also cancelled

Vlad, see you in a few hours, then?

<Vlad> Why is this happening?

because this is a late week not an early week

<Vlad> It shoes that our previous call (last week) has also been scheduled at 10 pm France

<Vlad> Did we loose our altenate time schedule?

For 2 Feb I see

15: 00-16:00Z

IA_Fonts

and for today I see

21: 00-22:00Z

IA_Fonts

<Vlad> So, if Feb. 02 hae been 10 pm, ths week shoudl be 4 pm CET, right?

<sylvaing> my calendar is definitely on for 7am PST

<jfkthame> for 2 feb i see both times

http://www.w3.org/Guide/1998/08/teleconference-calendar#D20110209

ah. yes, so do I

<jfkthame> also both times for 16 feb and 23 feb

<sylvaing> this is like some kind of quantum scheduling

<sylvaing> meeting is in both states at the same time

<jfkthame> or perhaps neither?

<sylvaing> yes

<jfkthame> it's a heisenmeeting

I will need to talk to the admin staff to see what is happening

<sylvaing> (insert Twilight Zone music)

<sylvaing> (..and witty comment on the need for same-origin meeting time)

<Vlad> So, what do we do for today? Do we reschedule for later or cancel until next week?

I suggest reschedule for later

<sylvaing> but then what is meeting time next week ?

<Vlad> Okay, I will send a notice to WG list

looking at the calendar over a longer period, it looks as if the later call has been scheduled weekly (despite what the booking says) and the earlier call every two weeks

I willtalk to the admin staff and get it sorted out

<sylvaing> all right. so talk again in 6 hours today ?

yup

in my personal calendar today was an early week, and it was set like that months ago

<sylvaing> same here

<Vlad> I just sent a msg to the WG list announcing the change for today, hope you guys can make it.

<Vlad> Check the email

trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Meeting: WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 09 February 2011

oh yes it has, Zakim

<jfkthame> is zakim not paying attention to the phone today?

actions at http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open

<scribe> ScribeNick: ChrisL

Action Items

action-29?

<trackbot> ACTION-29 -- John Hudson to review woff faq with chris and vlad -- due 2010-10-06 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/29

Vlad: John sent in some good text, i made some comments

ChrisL: plan to add the text that John sent in, we can always further revise later

close action-29

<trackbot> ACTION-29 Review woff faq with chris and vlad closed

<scribe> ACTION: chris to edit WOFF faq with Johns text incorporating Vlad's corrections [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/02/09-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-73 - Edit WOFF faq with Johns text incorporating Vlad's corrections [on Chris Lilley - due 2011-02-16].

action-48?

<trackbot> ACTION-48 -- Tal Leming to create UA test for bad metadata -- due 2010-11-24 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/48

close action-48

<trackbot> ACTION-48 Create UA test for bad metadata closed

close action-49

<trackbot> ACTION-49 Update UA test plan to include new "fringe" tests. closed

close action-50

<trackbot> ACTION-50 Update font format test plan to include new "fringe" tests. closed

Tal: I did those

action-52?

<trackbot> ACTION-52 -- Chris Lilley to respond to erik muller on pronunciation and sorting -- due 2010-12-08 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/52

ChrisL: not done yet

action-57?

<trackbot> ACTION-57 -- Jonathan Kew to respons on issue-14 -- due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/57

jfkthame: still working on that one

Vlad: direction attributes inside element. But issue is text in attributes
... so our conclusion was that font vendor names don't need directin attributes anyway

jfkthame: direction applies to the attribute, the only thing you can't do ia add markup in attributes. We agreed to add direction to all elements

Vlad: and direction can be based on Unicode rules, for simple text
... Chris and Richard discussed but there was no conclusion

ChrisL: need to propose a solution to Richard and see what he says

action-58?

<trackbot> ACTION-58 -- Tal Leming to revise test cases to allow multiple credit elements -- due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/58

action-59?

<trackbot> ACTION-59 -- Chris Lilley to respond to I18n-ISSUE-2 -- due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/59

Chris: that one is easy, will do soon

action-60>

action-61?

<trackbot> ACTION-61 -- Chris Lilley to provide samples and respond to I18n -- due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/61

ChrisL: ok so this is the div and span one
... 62 is waiting for action-61

action-64?

<trackbot> ACTION-64 -- Jonathan Kew to remove normative statements from introduction to new section 'General Requirements' -- due 2011-01-26 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/64

jfkthame: done today

close action-64

<trackbot> ACTION-64 Remove normative statements from introduction to new section 'General Requirements' closed

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/webfonts/WOFF/spec/Overview.html

close action-64

<trackbot> ACTION-64 Remove normative statements from introduction to new section 'General Requirements' closed

close action-66

<trackbot> ACTION-66 Edit spec 'this element may be localised' replaced 'this element may be localised using text child element' closed

close action-67

<trackbot> ACTION-67 Edit section 6, past paragraph: 'at least one text sub element' replaced by 'at least one text child element'. closed

close action-68

<trackbot> ACTION-68 General replacement: 'sub elements' to 'child elements' closed

close action-70

<trackbot> ACTION-70 Replace last sentence of section 7: End of Private Data block must correspond with the end of the last file. closed

close action-71

<trackbot> ACTION-71 Clarify Bert Bos' Point 4 closed

close action-72

<trackbot> ACTION-72 Respond to Bert Bos' Point 5. closed

ChrisL: still need to update disposition of comments document for these emails
... szilles accepted the comments that were sent

action chrisl to update disposition of comments

<trackbot> Created ACTION-74 - Update disposition of comments [on Chris Lilley - due 2011-02-16].

file format tests

tal: blanket 'is file valid' is not very good for debugging. many reasons for invalidity
... looking for a machine readable fault report
... to be linked to
... other than that, these are straightforward
... will work on authoring tool tests next. Not clear on best structure
... can give sfnt, xml and private then validate the output
... lots of things the spec says about padding, but rhe compression variability makes it hard to ensure they do the right thing

Vlad: we should review the format tests

tal: yes, though after spec updates are done

ChrisL: (explains last call exit and cr entrance policy in process)

same origin restriction

Vlad: we don't have an official comment but we do have two implementors who say they won't implement
... so is this a last call comment or not
... better to sort it out before entering CR

ChrisL: agreed

Vlad: other opinions?
... Hakon made a proposal in email

cslye: agree with Vlad, need a more pointed discussion. currently we have implementors saying they will ignore it if its in the spec
... process is to get consensus first. we should resolve it

Vlad: so we have IE9 and Frefox who implemented it and Chrome may (Tab is not against)

sylvain: lets see when they check it in
... need to split the mechanics from whether its a requirement or not
... do we feel some form of SOR is required or not
... several ways to solve it

Vlad: yes we need to solve this and get it behind us

cslye: dave singer said he would get back to us

Vlad: Maciej joined the WG recently, so its good to see further active participation from Apple

sylvaing: opera have not closed the door, they made a counter prooposal and are still talking

Vlad: (checks charter for specific mentionof SOR)

sylvaing: IE9 will ship with current solution, so even if we change later we have that to deal with

"This specification will reference the font formats in existing use (OpenType, WOFF, SVG, and EOT), the font referencing and linking specifications (in both CSS and XML serialisations), access policies such as same-origin and CORS, and define which linking mechanisms, policies and formats are required for compliance."

sylvaing: we also depend on CORS which is not a Rec. Even worse if we depend on a new thing not even FPWD yet

ChrisL: gan go to PR then holding pattern for Rec.
... or put conformance in a separate spec

sylvaing: not want the format to be held back

Vlad: sooner the better

next calls

ChrisL: Zakim booking is correct again, same pattern as previously

Vlad: next telcon will be dedicated to the CORs/SOR issue
... some regrets in March due to travel

ChrisL: same for me first week of March

<cslye> I can't do Mar 2 either, FWIW.

- DRAFT -

WebFonts Working Group Teleconference

09 Feb 2011

Attendees

Contents

Action Items

file format tests

same origin restriction

next calls

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output