14:00:09 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webfonts
14:00:09 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-webfonts-irc
14:00:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:00:11 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webfonts
14:00:13 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3668
14:00:13 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see IA_Fonts()10:00AM scheduled to start now
14:00:14 <trackbot> Meeting: WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
14:00:14 <trackbot> Date: 30 May 2012
14:00:23 <ChrisL2> Chair: Vlad
14:00:29 <ChrisL2> Scribe: ChrisL2
14:01:20 <jfkthame> jfkthame has joined #webfonts
14:01:35 <Zakim> IA_Fonts()10:00AM has now started
14:01:44 <Zakim> +ChrisL
14:01:46 <Zakim> + +1.410.370.aaaa
14:02:18 <Zakim> + +44.845.397.aabb
14:02:22 <Zakim> + +1.510.816.aacc
14:02:32 <Zakim> + +1.781.970.aadd
14:02:34 <tal> zakim, aaaa is tal
14:02:39 <ChrisL2> zakim, aabb is jfkthame
14:02:41 <Zakim> +tal; got it
14:02:46 <Zakim> +jfkthame; got it
14:03:01 <ChrisL2> zakim, aacc is Christopher
14:03:01 <Zakim> +Christopher; got it
14:03:11 <ChrisL2> zakim, aadd is Vlad
14:03:11 <Zakim> +Vlad; got it
14:03:17 <Vlad> zakim, aadd is me
14:03:17 <Zakim> sorry, Vlad, I do not recognize a party named 'aadd'
14:03:31 <cslye> cslye has joined #webfonts
14:03:55 <Vlad> zakim, 781.970.aadd is vlad
14:03:55 <Zakim> sorry, Vlad, I do not recognize a party named '781.970.aadd'
14:04:24 <ChrisL2> zakim, who is here?
14:04:24 <Zakim> On the phone I see ChrisL, tal, jfkthame, Christopher, Vlad
14:04:25 <Zakim> On IRC I see cslye, jfkthame, Zakim, RRSAgent, tal, Vlad, ChrisL2, trackbot
14:04:53 <ChrisL2> Vlad: Chris sent email to a draft charter today
14:05:16 <ChrisL2> ChrisL2: lets do that after the woff 1.0 item
14:06:59 <ChrisL2> Vlad: Sylvain says IE10 builds should pass all the test cases
14:08:01 <ChrisL2> Vlad: if that is the case then we have two implementations, validator is the second one
14:08:47 <ChrisL2> Vlad: found a minor inconsistency. Section 5 padding requirement says tables must begin on 4 byte boundaries and be zero padded. 
14:09:37 <ChrisL2> ... however metadata section says that, as its optional, must follow immediately the last font table which is expected to be zero padded. if its the last block there should be no additional padding
14:10:21 <ChrisL2> ... private data says it must be last, begin on 4 byte boundary, (so expressed as a tool requirement) and no requirement on padding at the end
14:10:50 <ChrisL2> Vlad: so for any block, if its the last one, no need to pad. To be consistent
14:11:17 <ChrisL2> ... and test case becomes invalid
14:11:44 <ChrisL2> tal: changing that will break the implementations that are passing
14:13:34 <ChrisL2> ChrisL2: OT spec end padding is optional
14:13:51 <ChrisL2> Vlad: OT says padding is 'strongly recommended' not a must
14:14:28 <ChrisL2> tal: found the bug in fonttools. long discussion with Just van Rossum. Spec is very vasgue and contradictory
14:14:51 <ChrisL2> tal: would need to look through emails from 5 years ago to check
14:15:09 <ChrisL2> Vlad: (quotes from spec) "highly recommended"
14:15:44 <ChrisL2> tal: is it worth breaking the passing implementations by changing this
14:16:18 <ChrisL2> tal: so making padding on last table optional if there is no meta and no private
14:16:58 <ChrisL2> http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/tests/UserAgent/Tests/xhtml1/testcaseindex.xht#directory-4-byte-002
14:17:07 <ChrisL2> http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF/spec/#conform-tablesize-longword
14:17:33 <ChrisL2> tal: changes in the authoring and validator tests as well
14:19:50 <ChrisL2> ChrisL2: opera, webkit and firefox all fail this while IE10 might pass it (and the validator does so)
14:20:06 <ChrisL2> tal: odd to change the spec because one font is badly made
14:21:47 <ChrisL2> jfkthame: have the OT sanitiser folks said thwey would refuse a patch that fixes it for woff and does not change anything for OT?
14:21:52 <ChrisL2> (we don't know)
14:22:22 <ChrisL2> tal: don't mind changing it but we discussed a long time ago
14:22:50 <ChrisL2> jfkthame: spec as originally drafted only required padding if there was something following
14:23:11 <ChrisL2> ... then we changed it in the font tables so padding always happens
14:23:27 <ChrisL2> ... discrepancies in behaviour either way
14:24:54 <ChrisL2> cslye: why did we write that tools needed padding at the end table?
14:25:05 <ChrisL2> tal: found that bug in fonttools
14:25:17 <ChrisL2> ... due to differing interpretations of OT spec
14:26:06 <ChrisL2> jfkthame: it came from the definition of a well formed sfnt that was round trippable
14:26:19 <ChrisL2> ChrisL2: yes that is right
14:26:33 <ChrisL2> tal: and we were trying to make it good data coming in
14:26:49 <ChrisL2> jfkthame; and that is what other tools seem to be converging on
14:27:36 <ChrisL2> (we really need some representation from Microsoft to comment authoritatively on IE10)
14:28:03 <ChrisL2> jfkthame: would be happy to write the patch for OTS but it might not be accepted upstream
14:29:20 <ChrisL2> jfkthame: could do it as a firefox patch but prefer to see it adopted upstream
14:29:48 <ChrisL2> tal: is there any indication to OTS where the font came from?
14:29:54 <ChrisL2> jfkthame: yes
14:31:06 <ChrisL2> (commercial break - a word from our sponsors)
14:32:43 <ChrisL2> (we fail to contact Sylvain)
14:33:32 <ChrisL2> Vlad: consistency of implementation is the most important thing
14:34:01 <ChrisL2> ChrisL2; we can't make a decision withouthard data o what IE10 does
14:36:26 <ChrisL2> (decision deferred to next week)
14:37:50 <ChrisL2> (discussion on who the OTS maintainers are)
14:38:31 <ChrisL2> jfkthame: adam langley, but half a dozen other folks also involved
14:39:38 <ChrisL2> topic: new proposed charter
14:39:48 <ChrisL2> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2012May/0002.html
14:39:55 <Vlad> http://www.w3.org/2012/05/WebFonts/draft-charter.html
14:41:35 <ChrisL2> ChrisL2: there is a risk of old vs new implementations
14:42:07 <ChrisL2> Vlad: mainly heard positive opinions, mainly because of asian font size. Android also interested, for mobile
14:42:20 <ChrisL2> ... bandwidth on mobile still expensive
14:43:18 <ChrisL2> jfkthame: draft says it adds new method
14:44:24 <ChrisL2> ... should the deliverable be to "do" it or to "evaluate it, and do it if it evaluates well"
14:44:46 <ChrisL2> ... how does it compare to optimising structure and then applying woff 1.0?
14:45:29 <ChrisL2> Vlad: optimisation also gets rid of data that can be reconstructed. so woff does not have the reconstruction phase
14:45:48 <ChrisL2> ... loca, bounding box data can be reconstructed on the fly
14:47:00 <ChrisL2> tal: better to break the proposal into two parts, optmisation and compression
14:47:18 <ChrisL2> ... and measure where the benefits come from
14:47:54 <ChrisL2> Vlad; google did that and presented their findings, repository of code and sample fonts , fine grained report on where the benefits come from
14:48:21 <ChrisL2> ... optimisations give 15-30%, lzma givea an additional 30% over gzip
14:48:57 <ChrisL2> ... depends on what can be optimised, unhinted vs hinted, size of original font etc
14:49:26 <ChrisL2> ... data from Google is from around a thousand Google webfonts
14:50:30 <ChrisL2> ChrisL2: suggestion to evaluate and then maybe do it. is a good one
14:50:35 <ChrisL2> (general agreement)
14:53:47 <ChrisL2> (adjourned)
14:53:57 <ChrisL2> zakim, list participants
14:53:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ChrisL, +1.410.370.aaaa, +44.845.397.aabb, +1.510.816.aacc, +1.781.970.aadd, tal, jfkthame, Christopher, Vlad
14:54:19 <ChrisL2> rrsagent, make minutes
14:54:19 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2012/05/30-webfonts-minutes.html ChrisL2
14:54:42 <Zakim> -Christopher
14:54:44 <Zakim> -ChrisL
14:54:44 <Zakim> -tal
14:54:46 <Zakim> -Vlad
14:54:47 <Zakim> -jfkthame
14:54:47 <Zakim> IA_Fonts()10:00AM has ended
14:54:47 <Zakim> Attendees were ChrisL, +1.410.370.aaaa, +44.845.397.aabb, +1.510.816.aacc, +1.781.970.aadd, tal, jfkthame, Christopher, Vlad
14:55:14 <cslye> cslye has left #webfonts
16:32:29 <jfkthame> jfkthame has joined #webfonts
17:05:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webfonts