20:00:13 RRSAgent has joined #webfonts 20:00:13 logging to http://www.w3.org/2011/06/22-webfonts-irc 20:00:15 RRSAgent, make logs world 20:00:15 Zakim has joined #webfonts 20:00:17 Zakim, this will be 3668 20:00:17 ok, trackbot; I see IA_Fonts()4:00PM scheduled to start now 20:00:18 Meeting: WebFonts Working Group Teleconference 20:00:18 Date: 22 June 2011 20:00:44 zakim, this is 3668 20:00:44 ok, Vlad; that matches IA_Fonts()4:00PM 20:00:46 ChrisL has joined #webfonts 20:01:15 + +44.845.397.aacc 20:01:45 jfkthame has joined #webfonts 20:01:58 +ChrisL 20:02:12 zakim, who is here? 20:02:12 On the phone I see +1.781.970.aaaa, +1.417.671.aabb, +44.845.397.aacc, ChrisL 20:02:14 On IRC I see jfkthame, ChrisL, Zakim, RRSAgent, Vlad, jdaggett, trackbot 20:02:19 + +1.408.536.aadd 20:02:36 zakim, aacc is jfkthame 20:02:36 +jfkthame; got it 20:02:39 +??P6 20:02:41 scribe: ChrisL 20:02:49 cslye has joined #webfonts 20:02:55 zakim, ??p6 is me 20:02:55 +jdaggett; got it 20:03:32 zakim, aaaa is Vlad 20:03:32 +Vlad; got it 20:03:46 zakim, aabb is Glen 20:03:46 +Glen; got it 20:04:51 zakim, Glen is Glenn 20:04:51 +Glenn; got it 20:06:07 glenn has joined #webfonts 20:06:14 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2011Jun/0086.html 20:06:19 Chair: Vlad 20:07:10 Regrets: Tal 20:07:31 erik has joined #webfonts 20:07:50 can't call in, sorry 20:08:00 Topic: Formal objection from Samsung 20:08:14 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-font/2011AprJun/0069.html 20:08:57 Vlad: Glenn has joined the call.Please give the background for your objection. There has been much mailing list discussion 20:09:13 glenn: represent Samsung.Padt member of CSS WG. 20:09:40 ... in section 1 intro it has three requirements on user agents 20:09:59 ... unusual to have normative requirements in introduction 20:10:08 Vlad has joined #webfonts 20:10:14 ... the note seems to contain a normative must, unusual in a note 20:10:32 ... these should not be in an introduction 20:11:06 glenn: core issue is that these three paragraphs and note make reference to css3 rules and ua behaviour,this constrains implementations of woff 20:11:24 ... other implementations might use other ferencencing mechanisms or other access policy 20:12:04 ... majorr objection is use of referencing mechanisms and ua resource fetching in this file format specification rather than some other document 20:12:28 ... if these are all removed and subtiture text offered this would solve the objection 20:13:00 jdaggett: which version are you looking at 20:13:12 http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/ 20:13:13 http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/ 20:13:23 ChrisL: the /TR version. Glenn, the editors draft has moved this normative text from the introduction 20:13:50 jdaggett: which version of the css3 fonts spec did you look at? 20:13:58 glenn: just the woff part 20:14:06 ... ok so my first issue is solved 20:14:14 ... in the editors draft 20:14:29 glenn: want to see the general requirements removed 20:14:43 ... a separate document defining this would be okay 20:15:21 ... access control policy that applies to a ua or other agent that uses this file format 20:15:53 jdaggett: on the list you seem to want the css3 font spec to change also? or only the woff spec 20:16:18 glenn: same comments on css3 font spec it should not define the fetching process 20:16:58 glenn: the way to refer to a font. not a fetching mechanism. nothing says about the transport protocol used to fetch this 20:17:24 glenn: this wg does not develop css3 fonts 20:17:55 Vlad: yes but they are markjed as features at risk because we believe they should be removed from the format spec and placed in css3 fonts instead 20:18:09 glenn: understand but dont't agree 20:19:24 glenn: right nw we have looping references 20:19:42 .. want a tree graph not a circular graph 20:20:32 ChrisL: your mail says that moving all this to html5 how would that solve your problem? 20:20:40 glenn: no preference 20:22:03 ChrisL: html5 spec and css3 spec both define auto fetching linked resources, how do they differ 20:22:22 glenn: html5 defines the fetching mechanism in detail 20:22:38 ... css3 fonts does not define that mechanism not should it 20:22:58 jdaggett: so you are sayingit cant define requirements around that fetching? 20:23:50 jfkthame: throughout the woff document there are ua requirements 20:24:34 glenn: png or mpeg or jpeg dont define ua requirements in the file format. format should be independent. conformance on processing is reasonable, like encoding or decoding 20:24:47 ... conformance levels related to presentation. 20:24:56 ... those are reasonable 20:25:15 ... requirements on access mechanisms and transport protocols are not appropriate 20:25:44 jfkthame: we agree the file format is not the place to define it. that was accepted and agreed but it is not as yet defined anywhere else 20:26:27 ... much harder to understand your objection to defining that in css3 fonts. its defining the @font-face rule and entirely appropriate to define how a ua behaves when processing that rule 20:27:09 glenn: other referencing specs at w3c like xlink or xml stylesheet spec or css 2.1 which refer to other resources dont define fetching or access semantics 20:27:20 ... so that precedent should apply here 20:27:42 jdaggett: seems to be a thoretical distinction. why the requirement to follow those boundaries 20:28:13 glenn: group can do as they wish, define different levels. specs are mixing layers here, transport and formats 20:29:02 jdaggett: do you feel the same way about the loading mechanism of images in the canvas api, like the tainting rules - do you object there? this is very similar 20:29:16 glenn: canvas started in html5 20:29:50 ... its linked to html5 in a way that css3 fonts is not. it doid not start out by having acccess mechanisms in it 20:30:08 Vlad: historically css started as part of the html activity then migrated 20:31:02 jdaggett: canvas has a similar definition about origin, if the canvas references images from a particukar origin it has impact on ua behavioour. its part of the html5 spec right now at w3c. 20:31:28 ... the reason its erelevant to this discussionis an example is it defines ua behaviour 20:31:53 glenn: html5 is a definition of UA behaviour. css 2 does not define origin requirements 20:32:11 jdaggett: are you saying no definition of access can be in css specs? 20:32:45 glenn: html5 defines a user agent. css3 should be referenceable by other specs that use other acess control or transport mechanisms 20:33:14 jdaggett: cant see how a spec that defines fetching resources is not a user agent specification 20:34:05 glenn: css can and has been employed in other contexts. idea of modularisation is to make specs independent. fetchingsemantics in css3 is going backwards. unnecessary dependencies that are not rwquired in woff or css3 20:34:42 Vlad: are you saying that if we had this text in a separate spec is okay 20:34:47 glenn: yes 20:35:18 jdaggett: pushing everything out to another spec makes no sense its findamental to the @font-face rule 20:35:34 cslye: it was decided after long discussion that it was relevant 20:36:03 glenn: html 5 has a section that goes into great detail on resource fetching. that is a good place to define this also 20:36:09 ... or in a separate spec 20:37:40 glenn: work with authors and content providers 9scribe missed some) guidance to authors and we are folliwing up on this. if these requirements remain then our specs will override this and make them optional in our specs 20:37:51 s/9s/(s/ 20:38:12 ... if this is in a separate spec we might reference that in some profiles 20:39:01 cslye: so this seems to undermine the point that defining this is generally inappropriate 20:40:08 glenn: after looking at the email again we dont object to same origin per se or to SOR vs From-origin. want the option for another group that i am working with to have the option to refer to woff and to css3 font face and have the option to include sor or not 20:40:18 jdaggett: a group that is not epub? 20:40:31 Vlad: epub does not have confidentially restrictions 20:40:59 glenn: its a group for consumer electronics and the fcc has adopted its specs for tvs and handhed devices 20:41:24 ... due to confidentiallity i can't say more 20:41:37 jdaggett: so this impacts creating a profile? 20:41:57 gl: yes, it means we have to overide it instead of the flexibility of making it optional 20:42:11 jfkthame; consensus of the group was that this should not be optional 20:42:45 cslye: yes that was what made the font vendors comfortable with it. adobe would see no value in this spec without sor 20:43:32 glenn: want this to be optional. we can overide it if you publish like this but we think its architecturally unsound. understand that the group has asked font vendors. 20:43:50 ... neither truetype or opentype or pdf define this 20:44:04 cslye: woff is not a font format its a delivery container 20:44:06 glenn: yes 20:44:34 jdaggett: having specs refer to other optional specs mean aiuthors cant rely on the feature. so it makes things not work 20:45:06 glenn: might allow the user to disable user agent restrictions,that is another option 20:45:48 jd; we are primarily interested in specs defined by w3c. if other people want to profile this in other ways ... 20:46:02 glenn: dont see this is only for use for w3c defined user agents 20:46:11 Vlad: actually the group charter says that 20:46:30 ... first statement, mission is for interiperable download of fonts on the web 20:46:42 glenn: ah okay 20:47:53 Vlad: you said that part of the group has a strong interest ... actually that is a resolution of the whole wg. and normative behavious gives interop, this is also a group consensus 20:48:18 ... agree that the format spec is not iseal, best place is in css3 fonts which is where this referencing mechanism is defined 20:48:40 glenn; we will object if its in either of woff or css3 specs 20:49:01 Vlad: so primar y requirement is to be able to profile it out? 20:49:19 glenn: no the primary objection is the mixing of layers 20:49:30 cslye: do others support you on that? 20:50:11 glenn: yes i have had some supporting email. have not looked at other participants in this other consumer electronics forum but some of them are w3c members so i will ask what their position is 20:50:26 ... if samsung is a lone dissenter we might drop the objection later 20:50:36 ... will look at how this is resolved 20:51:45 jdaggett; as editor of css3 fonts spec, i dont see a way of changing the spec to what you are asking for, so that the same origin mechanism goes into a third spec. it merely pushes the specs around rather than adressing the actual issue of what the origin mechanism should be 20:51:53 glenn: understand your position 20:52:08 ... see that html5 defines same origin and something related to fonts 20:52:17 ... this is where it should be defined 20:52:51 Vlad: thanks glenn for joining us so we can better undertand each other's positions. this has beena positive discussion and i think we all understand the issues now 20:53:30 ... can see that other organisations develop subset specs, this has happened before. that is fine but for w3c we want somthing that is coherent, tstraightforward as possible 20:54:29 glenn: on a final not, we are not trying to make a change thatprecludes content authors restricting access to content. no objecting to that. dont want to stop content authors or font foundries protecting their content or intellectiual property 20:54:40 ... there are mechanisms for controlling access 20:55:15 ... autgors can express constraints on access and uas can accept those contraints. no problem with that 20:55:33 glenn: happy to attend a future call, thanks for the discussions 20:55:35 -Glenn 20:57:28 -ChrisL 20:58:11 +ChrisL 21:07:37 -jdaggett 21:07:39 -ChrisL 21:07:39 - +1.408.536.aadd 21:07:40 -Vlad 21:07:43 -jfkthame 21:07:44 IA_Fonts()4:00PM has ended 21:07:46 Attendees were +1.781.970.aaaa, +1.417.671.aabb, +44.845.397.aacc, ChrisL, +1.408.536.aadd, jfkthame, jdaggett, Vlad, Glenn 21:07:47 agdourned 21:07:49 cslye has left #webfonts 21:07:53 zakim, list attendees 21:07:53 sorry, ChrisL, I don't know what conference this is 21:08:02 rrsagent, make minutes 21:08:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2011/06/22-webfonts-minutes.html ChrisL