WebFonts Working Group Teleconference -- 23 Feb 2011

<trackbot> Date: 23 February 2011

<erik> (I have trouble dialing in, "this passcode is not valid" - will continue to try)

it accepted my passcode

<jdaggett> erik: i seemed to get on fine

<jdaggett> dialing into the us number

<erik> (Zakim Paris didn't accept, Zakim London did, calling via skype)

<scribe> scribenick: ChrisL

ChrisL: waiting on responses from Bert.
... sent response to Erik Muller
... will commit the changes after the call

Vlad: ok
... wanted to discuss SOR and way to relax it
... but we have no-one from Apple or Microsoft or Opera on this call
... dont want to remove something from the spec, hoping it later gets added elsewhere
... with a note saying its subject to change in the future
... reviewed process document and it allows features to be marked as 'at risk' and the WG may remove them (but is not forced to)
... if we do that it avoids risk of a second last call if we drop the feature

<sergeym> I'm here, but can't call in

ChrisL: yes, that is correct

Vlad: there is a majority who want it done one way and a minority who want it another way
... so we should mark i as at risk. If we can convince CSS WG to put it in CSS3 Fonts then we can drop it once that is in. Its not WOFF specific

jdaggett: Even then you still have a dependency of WOFF on CSS3 Fonts which is dependent of From-Origin which does not exist yet

Vlad: yes but we would be moving in the right direction
... meanwhile implementations can go forward. Currently we have two implementations per spec

jdaggett: there was consensus at one point but now there is not. There has been a split

Vlad: Hakon voiced some concerns and said some in Opera are for, some against; and company position in balance was to abstain

jdaggett: its not majority rule. Consensus

Vlad: we have neither a consensus to keep it or to remove it, so at risk seems better

jdaggett: So you say add a note with SOR default with CORS to relax is at risk

Vlad: More specific, two notes
... one about CORS saying we believe FO may be better but there is no spec
... second is for SOR saying we could remove it if we have consensus to remove it or if its added in CSS3 Fonts spec which is a better place for it

jdaggett: Concerned about the feature 'might change'. at risk is either keep or drop

<Vlad> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi

Vlad: so CORS would be 'at risk' and explain why, because FO is better

jdaggett: Better if its in the CSS3 Fonts spec
... tied to @font-face not to WOFF specifically
... wil lput it in an editors draft but mark as at risk then see what flies

Vlad: So should people join CSS WG ?

jdaggett: Dave Singer and Hakon arte there already

Vlad: I could join as well

ChrisL; So am I and Sylvain

Vlad: Recommend people join that group as well

jdaggett: Unfortunate no-one from Apple is here to clarify which of the possible future options they are comfortable with
... CSS WG is a different group, not clear whether they will like it or not. But f2f in two weeks from now

Vlad; I can't make that meeting

jdaggett: I will add it and we can have the discussion in CSS WG.
... want to avoid specs that can never move on

Vlad: can you express the majority opinion here

jdaggett: all sides will be well represented
... Chris could write up a proposed revision to mark it as at risk

ChrisL: sure

action Chris to propose at-risk woding

<trackbot> Created ACTION-77 - Propose at-risk wording [on Chris Lilley - due 2011-03-02].

jdaggett: then can propose it to CSS WG

Vlad: Chris and i are not available next week, and the week after is CSS so we should cancel those?

jdaggett: Not sure about that

ChrisL: will be in NZ for SVG; not going to CSS WG in California unfortunately

Vlad: proposing to postpone until we have news from the CSS WG

(we agree on timezones and stuff - CSS WG f2f clashes with WebFonts WG telcon)

Vlad: so we cancel the next two weeks calls

John: So implementors can still choose to not implement a feature

Vlad: (quotes from http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi)

John: we seem to be headed towards non interoperability

Vlad: at-risk features are still normative and are still tested

jdaggett; at risk just lets us drop it later without another last call

jdaggett: One way to get interop is that FO header goes in a spec, and people agree on a default if not present, so there is a middle ground. FO influences SOR or not
... that could get us interop
... One tricky thing, not clear which WG would have FO in its charter
... Hakon is pushing for HTML WG, seems not in scope there

Vlad: Maciej mentioned WebApps

jdaggett: That might be tricky from a rechartering perspective
... would have been better to have these objections and alternate proposals when the charer was reviewed, rather than now

Vlad: any objections to marking SOR and CORS as at-risk

(none heard)

Vlad: Lets look at open actions