See also: IRC log
<scribe> Scribe: ChrisL
<RSheeter> Chris would you like to scribe or shall I?
I was ready to (but thanks!) I'm fine this week
(discussion on DPub IG and recent font discussions, licensing for online/offline/epub)
Vlad: sorry for the delay in getting the changes done. Now ready for review
http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/pendingreview
RSheeter: have reviewed the spec changes
jfkthame: found a few minor typoes, nothing major, will send to list
action-184?
<trackbot> action-184 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Add test for valid collection to spec & cts -- due 2015-09-09 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/184
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
... just a placeholder pn the CTS plan
https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/wiki/TestPlan20-UserAgent#mustLoadFontCollection
(it is fine)
close action-184
<trackbot> Closed action-184.
action-187?
<trackbot> action-187 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Incorporate jonathans hmtx suggestion into spec -- due 2015-10-14 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/187
http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#hmtx_table_format
Vlad: several changes there, lets review all of them
jfkthame: Think I am satisfied by these changes, it seems ok
Vlad: original draft had hmtx transformation mandatory, now it is optional as discussed at f2f
close action-187
<trackbot> Closed action-187.
action-188?
<trackbot> action-188 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Update spec for flags, weith glyf and loca treated specially for historical reasons -- due 2015-10-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/188
Vlad: as discussed at f2f, stepping back from original hard mandate on glyf and loca transforms, allow encoder to be more flexible.
<RSheeter> http://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#conform-transformedLocaMustAccompanyGlyf
Vlad: so we made it possible to
not transform, using a special flag. if both set to 1, tables
are not transformed.
... so gives us 0 through 2 and space for other
transforms
... added to spec and placeholders to CTS plan
RSheeter: lgtm
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
ChrisL: seems clear to me
close action-188
<trackbot> Closed action-188.
action-189?
<trackbot> action-189 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Clarify about shared hmtx tables, can only transform if all glyf tables match -- due 2015-10-20 -- PENDINGREVIEW
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/189
Vlad: depends on checking for all
fonts in a collection, to look for shared tables
... change discussed at f2f
... this is also relevant to action-190
action-190?
<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
<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/190
Vlad: not sure how to test
without making it very complicated
... see comments on http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/190
ChrisL: we don't test a lot of
invalid bytestreams that the decoder still has to deal
with.
... happy to leave this one as an untestable (FF)
Vlad: so if we reconsider, just
close the action with no change
... can keep open looking for new data
RSheeter: just close it
close action-190
<trackbot> Closed action-190.
close action-189
<trackbot> Closed action-189.
http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/open
Vlad: we still have some open
issues from publiuc comment, need to close before requesting
Candidate Recommendation
... issues with how some things are worded, c-like
structures
<RSheeter> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webfonts-wg/2015Nov/0000.html
Vlad: from Frédéric, some issues
are marked as deferred
... some changes impact existing implementation, hence
deferred. Nice to have it clean and pure but we have to
consider the cost
... his second comment was related to uint128 datatype
... would improve spec but is a breaking change
ChrisL: does it make the spec clearer?
Vlad: no
... he wants to eliminate the chance for overlap
... not a simple improvement. Invalidates all existing
fonts
RSheeter: prefer not to invalidate all deployed fonts
jfkthame_: might have been better, but benefir no longer wirth the breakage cost
Vlad: feel the same way
RESOLUTION: do not change how uint128 works because it would break all deployed fonts
jfkthame_: he is wanting pseudo code, not a format change
RSheeter: I like that in a spec
<scribe> ACTION: RSheeter to come up with pseudo code for the uint base128 description [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-webfonts-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Come up with pseudo code for the uint base128 description [on Roderick Sheeter - due 2015-12-09].
Vlad: table tags comment
... he is asking why allow a known table to be encoded as
custom tag
jfkthame_: have always wondered
<RSheeter> we all want to know ... who is then left to answer :D
jfkthame_: we no longer rely,
with the flag bits, on table tags to see if it is transformed
or not
... it is all defined by flags. That one would trigger impl
changes, does not affect existing fonts
ChrisL: would disallowing it have any impact
RSheeter: our code already does
it that way
... Vlad do you have a secret encoder?
(laughs)
RESOLUTION: accept change, known tags must use known tag format not custom tag format
jfkthame_: so that need s a new decoder test. in theory this affect backwards compat, in practice it will not
Vlad: next deferred one is why
the decoder should verify the checksum
... need to find out exactly what he is asking there
ChrisL: is it his question that is unclar?
Vlad: no, need to follow up his references. discuss in email
ChrisL: does the mathml get rendered properly?
Vlad: no!
RSheeter: prefer to say "it is C integer division" in words
<RSheeter> even better specify what that actually means
<jfkthame_> or write it as "4 * floor( (numGlyphs + 31) / 32)"
Vlad: alternative is to keep original and add it is C notation. Division is C integer division
<RSheeter> I like that
ChrisL: like that too
<scribe> ACTION: vlad to insert "4 * floor( (numGlyphs + 31) / 32)" [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-webfonts-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-192 - Insert "4 * floor( (numglyphs + 31) / 32)" [on Vladimir Levantovsky - due 2015-12-09].
Vlad: last comment was related to
defining flag components, bitshify vs explicit ref to bit
numbers, like OT spec does
... seems reasonable
RSheeter: prefer the bitshift
version better, but not a strong opinion
... issue is they say bit 1, is that 0 or 1?
Vlad: OT spec uses 0 to 15, so it is clearly defined
RSheeter: clearer to me, but not necessarily the entire world. either is fine
RESOLUTION: accept the comment on bit numbers
Vlad: last question is already addressed. lsb vs lsb
(adjourned)
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/andate/mandate/ Succeeded: s/frederick/Frédéric/ Found Scribe: ChrisL Inferring ScribeNick: ChrisL Present: Rod David jfkthame Sergey Ken Vlad Chris Found Date: 02 Dec 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-webfonts-minutes.html People with action items: rsheeter vlad[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]