20:56:28 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webfonts
20:56:28 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-webfonts-irc
20:56:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
20:56:30 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webfonts
20:56:32 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3668
20:56:32 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
20:56:33 <trackbot> Meeting: WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
20:56:33 <trackbot> Date: 02 December 2015
20:56:43 <ChrisL> Chair: Vlad
20:56:49 <ChrisL> Scribe: ChrisL
20:58:05 <KenLundeAdobe> KenLundeAdobe has joined #webfonts
20:58:45 <RSheeter> RSheeter has joined #webfonts
20:59:54 <kuettel> kuettel has joined #webfonts
20:59:54 <Vlad> Vlad has joined #webfonts
21:00:25 <jfkthame> jfkthame has joined #webfonts
21:01:00 <sergeym> sergeym has joined #webfonts
21:02:17 <RSheeter> Chris would you like to scribe or shall I?
21:02:36 <ChrisL> I was ready to (but thanks!) I'm fine this week
21:03:40 <ChrisL> (discussion on DPub IG and recent font discussions, licensing for online/offline/epub)
21:05:42 <ChrisL> Vlad: sorry for the delay in getting the changes done. Now ready for review
21:06:15 <ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/pendingreview
21:06:46 <ChrisL> RSheeter: have reviewed the spec changes
21:07:03 <ChrisL> jfkthame: found a few minor typoes, nothing major, will send to list
21:07:08 <ChrisL> action-184?
21:07:08 <trackbot> action-184 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Add test for valid collection to spec & cts -- due 2015-09-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW
21:07:08 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/184
21:07:47 <ChrisL> Vlad: if it rejects a collection, it still passes which is bogus so we add a conformance requirement to accept valid font collections and do something with it
21:08:04 <ChrisL> ... just a placeholder pn the CTS plan
21:08:25 <ChrisL> https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustLoadFontCollection
21:08:26 <jfkthame_> jfkthame_ has joined #webfonts
21:08:32 <ChrisL> (it is fine)
21:08:52 <ChrisL> close action-184
21:08:53 <trackbot> Closed action-184.
21:08:56 <ChrisL> action-187?
21:08:56 <trackbot> action-187 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Incorporate jonathans hmtx suggestion into spec -- due 2015-10-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW
21:08:56 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/187
21:09:15 <ChrisL> http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#hmtx_table_format
21:10:01 <ChrisL> Vlad: several changes there, lets review all of them
21:10:19 <ChrisL> jfkthame: Think I am satisfied by these changes, it seems ok
21:10:47 <ChrisL> Vlad: original draft had hmtx transformation mandatory, now it is optional as discussed at f2f
21:11:05 <ChrisL> close action-187
21:11:05 <trackbot> Closed action-187.
21:11:09 <ChrisL> action-188?
21:11:09 <trackbot> action-188 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Update spec for flags, weith glyf and loca treated specially for historical reasons -- due 2015-10-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
21:11:09 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/188
21:11:41 <ChrisL> Vlad: as discussed at f2f, stepping back from original hard andate on glyf and loca transforms, allow encoder to be more flexible.
21:11:53 <ChrisL> s/andate/mandate
21:12:00 <RSheeter> http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-transformedLocaMustAccompanyGlyf
21:12:35 <ChrisL> ... so we made it possible to not transform, using a special flag. if both set to 1, tables are not transformed.
21:12:54 <ChrisL> ... so gives us 0 through 2 and space for other transforms
21:13:27 <ChrisL> Vlad: added to spec and placeholders to CTS plan
21:13:39 <ChrisL> RSheeter: lgtm
21:14:58 <ChrisL> Vlad: special case is section 5.3, added condition to say actual transfrm 0 is optional, conditional on the other table ie do it to both or neither
21:15:24 <ChrisL> ChrisL: seems clear to me
21:15:29 <ChrisL> close action-188
21:15:29 <trackbot> Closed action-188.
21:15:34 <ChrisL> action-189?
21:15:34 <trackbot> action-189 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Clarify about shared hmtx tables, can only transform if all glyf tables match -- due 2015-10-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
21:15:34 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/189
21:16:24 <ChrisL> Vlad: depends on checking for all fonts in a collection, to look for shared tables
21:16:38 <ChrisL> ... change discussed at f2f
21:17:41 <ChrisL> Vlad: this is also relevant to action-190
21:17:46 <ChrisL> action-190?
21:17:46 <trackbot> action-190 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Add conf reqt on at and ff to test for non-transformable shared hmtx with non-atching metrics in the two glyf tables -- due 2015-10-20 -- OPEN
21:17:46 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/190
21:18:27 <ChrisL> Vlad: not sure how to test without making it very complicated
21:18:45 <ChrisL> Vlad: see comments on http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/190
21:20:01 <ChrisL> ChrisL: we don't test a lot of invalid bytestreams that the decoder still has to deal with.
21:20:24 <ChrisL> ... happy to leave this one as an untestable (FF)
21:21:12 <ChrisL> Vlad: so if we reconsider, just close the action with no change
21:21:38 <ChrisL> ... can keep open looking for new data
21:21:43 <ChrisL> RSheeter: just close it
21:22:03 <ChrisL> close action-190
21:22:03 <trackbot> Closed action-190.
21:22:44 <ChrisL> close action-189
21:22:44 <trackbot> Closed action-189.
21:23:07 <ChrisL> topic: open action items
21:23:08 <ChrisL> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open
21:24:24 <ChrisL> topic: remaining public comments
21:24:48 <ChrisL> Vlad: we still have some open issues from publiuc comment, need to close before requesting Candidate Recommendation
21:25:02 <ChrisL> ... issues with how some things are worded, c-like structures
21:25:58 <RSheeter> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2015Nov/0000.html
21:26:02 <ChrisL> Vlad: from frederick, some issues are marked as deferred
21:26:57 <ChrisL> Vlad: some changes impact existing implementation, hence deferred. Nice to have it clean and pure but we have to consider the cost
21:27:18 <ChrisL> s/frederick/Frédéric
21:28:20 <ChrisL> Vlad: his second comment was related to uint128 datatype
21:28:42 <ChrisL> ... would improve spec but is a breaking change
21:29:01 <ChrisL> ChrisL: does it make the spec clearer?
21:29:03 <ChrisL> Vlad: no
21:29:23 <ChrisL> ... he wants to eliminate the chance for overlap
21:29:39 <ChrisL> .. not a simple improvement. Invalidates all existing fonts
21:30:01 <ChrisL> RSheeter: prefer not to invalidate all deployed fonts
21:30:16 <ChrisL> jfkthame_: might have been better, but benefir no longer wirth the breakage cost
21:30:21 <ChrisL> Vlad: feel the same way
21:30:49 <ChrisL> resolved: do not change how uint128 works because it would break all deployed fonts
21:31:24 <ChrisL> jfkthame_: he is wanting pseudo code, not a format change
21:31:30 <ChrisL> RSheeter: I like that in a spec
21:32:13 <ChrisL> action: RSheeter to come up with pseudo code for the uint base128 description
21:32:13 <trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Come up with pseudo code for the uint base128 description [on Roderick Sheeter - due 2015-12-09].
21:32:54 <ChrisL> Vlad: table tags comment
21:33:17 <ChrisL> ... he is asking why allow a known table to be encoded as custom tag
21:33:26 <ChrisL> jfkthame_: have always wondered
21:33:47 <RSheeter> we all want to know ... who is then left to answer :D
21:34:03 <ChrisL> ... we no longer rely, with the flag bits, on table tags to see if it is transformed or not
21:34:28 <ChrisL> ... it is all defined by flags. That one would trigger impl changes, does not affect existing fonts
21:35:12 <ChrisL> ChrisL: would disallowing it have any impact
21:35:24 <ChrisL> RSheeter: our code already does it that way
21:35:36 <ChrisL> RSheeter: Vlad do you have a secret encoder?
21:35:39 <ChrisL> (laughs)
21:36:12 <ChrisL> resolved: accept change, known tags must use known tag format not custom tag format
21:36:40 <ChrisL> jfkthame_: so that need s a new decoder test. in theory this affect backwards compat, in practice it will not
21:37:53 <ChrisL> Vlad: next deferred one is why the decoder should verify the checksum
21:39:05 <ChrisL> Vlad: need to find out exactly what he is asking there
21:39:43 <ChrisL> ChrisL: is it his question that is unclar?
21:39:56 <ChrisL> Vlad: no, need to follow up his references. discuss in email
21:41:01 <ChrisL> ChrisL: does the mathml get rendered properly?
21:41:05 <ChrisL> Vlad: no!
21:41:28 <ChrisL> RSheeter: prefer to say "it is C integer division" in words
21:41:55 <RSheeter> even better specify what that actually means
21:42:03 <jfkthame_> or write it as "4 * floor( (numGlyphs + 31) / 32)"
21:42:20 <ChrisL> Vlad: alternative is to keep original and add it is C notation. Division is C integer division
21:42:20 <RSheeter> I like that
21:42:38 <ChrisL> ChrisL: like that too
21:43:08 <ChrisL> action: vlad to insert  "4 * floor( (numGlyphs + 31) / 32)"
21:43:08 <trackbot> Created ACTION-192 - Insert  "4 * floor( (numglyphs + 31) / 32)" [on Vladimir Levantovsky - due 2015-12-09].
21:44:01 <ChrisL> Vlad: last comment was related to defining flag components, bitshify vs explicit ref to bit numbers, like OT spec does
21:44:11 <ChrisL> ... seems reasonable
21:44:28 <ChrisL> RSheeter: prefer the bitshift version better, but not a strong opinion
21:45:06 <ChrisL> RSheeter: issue is they say bit 1, is that 0 or 1?
21:45:28 <ChrisL> Vlad: OT spec uses 0 to 15, so it is clearly defined
21:46:48 <ChrisL> RSheeter: clearer to me, but not necessarily the entire world. either is fine
21:47:02 <ChrisL> resolved: accept the comment on bit numbers
21:47:44 <ChrisL> Vlad: last question is already addressed. lsb vs lsb
21:48:27 <ChrisL> (adjourned)
21:48:33 <ChrisL> rrsagent, make minutes
21:48:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-webfonts-minutes.html ChrisL
22:00:40 <ChrisL> ChrisL has joined #webfonts
22:01:30 <ChrisL> present+ Rod, David, jfkthame, Sergey, Ken, Vlad, Chris
22:01:45 <ChrisL> rrsagent, make minutes
22:01:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-webfonts-minutes.html ChrisL
23:40:13 <jdaggett> jdaggett has joined #webfonts