14:58:22 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #webfonts
14:58:22 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-webfonts-irc
14:58:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:58:24 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #webfonts
14:58:26 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 3668
14:58:26 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:58:27 <trackbot> Meeting: WebFonts Working Group Teleconference
14:58:27 <trackbot> Date: 02 March 2016
14:59:01 <Vlad> Regrets: Ken_Lunde
15:00:55 <sergeym> sergeym has joined #webfonts
15:03:53 <kuettel> kuettel has joined #webfonts
15:04:23 <RSheeter> RSheeter has joined #webfonts
15:05:31 <ChrisLilley> ChrisLilley has joined #webfonts
15:07:40 <ChrisLilley> regrets: ken
15:07:52 <ChrisLilley> scribe: ChrisLilley
15:08:14 <ChrisLilley> present+ ChrisLilley
15:08:37 <ChrisLilley> present+ kuettel
15:08:49 <ChrisLilley> present+ sergeym
15:09:00 <ChrisLilley> present+ vlad
15:09:10 <jfkthame> jfkthame has joined #webfonts
15:09:44 <ChrisLilley> kuettel: Rod can't get connected to the phone
15:09:55 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: action-196?
15:10:03 <ChrisLilley> action-196?
15:10:03 <trackbot> action-196 -- Vladimir Levantovsky to Review treatment of empty glyphs vs 0-contour glyphs -- due 2016-02-17 -- PENDINGREVIEW
15:10:03 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/196
15:10:43 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: this will be an empty glyph on output
15:10:55 <RSheeter> present+ rsheeter
15:10:58 <ChrisLilley> present+ jonathan
15:11:15 <jfkthame> (sorry to be so late)
15:12:10 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: zero contour glyph (which is very rare) with non-zero bbox, font is considered junk. It is already a spwcial case, and has no paint. bbox should be empty in that case
15:12:30 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: safer to reject the font. We added a test case.
15:12:48 <ChrisLilley> ... for this one and for a missing one
15:13:34 <ChrisLilley> ... pass is no output on the encoder. Other test has a zero bbox and produces an empty glyph on output
15:14:16 <ChrisLilley> jfkthame: very much an edge case, sounds fine
15:14:20 <ChrisLilley> (agreement)
15:14:22 <ChrisLilley> close action-196
15:14:22 <trackbot> Closed action-196.
15:14:57 <ChrisLilley> topic: open action items
15:15:19 <ChrisLilley> action-186?
15:15:19 <trackbot> action-186 -- Roderick Sheeter to Try time (decode) and size for null glyf/loca xform vs regular vs woff1 -- due 2016-03-02 -- OPEN
15:15:19 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/186
15:15:41 <ChrisLilley> RSheeter: maybe two weeks
15:16:11 <ChrisLilley> action-172?
15:16:11 <trackbot> action-172 -- Chris Lilley to Register font media types -- due 2016-04-30 -- OPEN
15:16:11 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/172
15:17:27 <ChrisLilley> action-172 please chime in on the IETF list, new draft
15:18:01 <ChrisLilley> https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont/issues
15:19:23 <ChrisLilley> https://github.com/svgeesus/ietf-justfont
15:19:45 <ChrisLilley> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-justfont-toplevel/
15:20:30 <ChrisLilley> kuettel: great to see this happening
15:20:53 <ChrisLilley> jfkthame: about the fragment syntax, css fonts
15:24:43 <ChrisLilley> jfkthame: putting the fragment in the css @font-face is good
15:26:00 <ChrisLilley> (discussion on web architecture and where fragments are defined and how client-server works when there is a fragment)
15:26:17 <ChrisLilley> action-195?
15:26:17 <trackbot> action-195 -- Roderick Sheeter to Check ua test https://www.w3.org/fonts/wg/wiki/testplan20-useragent#mustrejectinvalidbase128 -- due 2016-02-17 -- OPEN
15:26:17 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/195
15:27:39 <ChrisLilley> action-197?
15:27:39 <trackbot> action-197 -- Sergey Malkin to Investigate font collections; how are glyf/hmtx shared in practice -- due 2016-02-17 -- OPEN
15:27:39 <trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/track/actions/197
15:27:53 <ChrisLilley> sergey: I am here
15:28:29 <ChrisLilley> sergey: have not found any fonts like that, still investigating. Another week would be good.
15:29:15 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: yesterday there was a suggestion for the new cts
15:29:43 <ChrisLilley> RRSAgent: spec says not to trust those fields and we do in the current impl so we need tests for that
15:29:43 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'spec says not to trust those fields and we do in the current impl so we need tests for that', ChrisLilley.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:29:57 <ChrisLilley> sergey: dedicated tests would be nice
15:30:09 <ChrisLilley> RSheeter: spec says not to trust those fields and we do in the current impl so we need tests for that
15:31:01 <RSheeter> specifically WOFF2Header totalSfntSize and 'glyf's origLength
15:31:08 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: construct a glyf table different size than original, can be smaller or larger. Will not give the exact number for target memory allocation size
15:31:20 <ChrisLilley> RSheeter: maybe one too small, one too large
15:31:47 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: not an error if you fail to optimise output of the decoder, or if you have a better optimisation
15:32:12 <ChrisLilley> RSheeter: test should set the size to zero and it should still work
15:32:33 <ChrisLilley> sergey: decoder rejects a perfectly valid font because of this issue.
15:32:43 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: so it decodes to a valid font
15:32:57 <ChrisLilley> ... need to define the conformance case for it
15:33:13 <ChrisLilley> sergey: spec says these are only hints, is it enough?
15:33:54 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: need to look at the text, make it more explicit. But just in plain English
15:34:20 <ChrisLilley> ChrisLilley: think this one is easy enough to express as a conformance requirement
15:34:51 <ChrisLilley> RSheeter: made a unit test easily
15:35:13 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: its total sfnt size
15:35:23 <ChrisLilley> RSheeter: and also orig length of glyf
15:36:06 <ChrisLilley> RSheeter: Google code was trusting of that field because at the time we hoped to have exact sizes
15:36:17 <RSheeter> (fix on it's way)
15:37:20 <ChrisLilley> RSheeter: so can we have a conf test where orig length is set to an unfeasibly small value and check the font decodes correctly
15:37:39 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: yes, just checking what the spec should say
15:37:54 <ChrisLilley> sergey: use the same wording
15:38:36 <ChrisLilley> jfkthame: can make test where those values are zero or one. Also huge values, and require the font is not huge full of empty space
15:39:02 <ChrisLilley> RSheeter: agreed.
15:39:28 <ChrisLilley> sergey: why, if it is valid (but huge)?
15:39:57 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: any data entry in the table entry can be doctored. can be done maliciously to try and do a buffer overrun
15:40:42 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: for example if it exceeds total sfnt size
15:41:25 <ChrisLilley> sergey: prefer the test is that the font should not be rejected. don't care about the decoded size
15:41:31 <ChrisLilley> RSheeter: yes
15:42:15 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: I can do that, on the test plan
15:42:34 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: just a note on the total font size
15:43:26 <ChrisLilley> sergey: this should be for any transformed table
15:45:16 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: don't see a need for a cts here. Decoders will do much more complete tests to ensure they do not crash
15:45:39 <ChrisLilley> sergey; we have valid fonts that fail because of sizes smaller than what the decoder produces
15:45:57 <ChrisLilley> ... current code allocates that size. It fails.
15:46:09 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: but that is an implementation bug
15:46:47 <ChrisLilley> sergey: so therefore we want a test, and a stronger statement. must only be used for reference purposes. Must not reject the font.
15:47:08 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: okay, we can do that. Change the note to a MUST NOT reject
15:48:05 <ChrisLilley> action: vlad to add conformance clause for must not reject glyf size and original size
15:48:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-198 - Add conformance clause for must not reject glyf size and original size [on Vladimir Levantovsky - due 2016-03-09].
15:48:46 <ChrisLilley> topic: meetings
15:49:25 <ChrisLilley> atypi and tpac coincide. atypi in warsaw, tpac in lisbon so possible to combine in one trip
15:50:03 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: we have a choice, can attend one or both so where do we have the meeting?
15:50:21 <ChrisLilley> ... tpac gives the option of a cross-group discussion
15:52:01 <ChrisLilley> ChrisLilley: are there groups that want to talk to us?
15:52:07 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: plan to attend both
15:52:34 <ChrisLilley> ChrisLilley: so do I; easier if there is a meeting at atypi
15:53:26 <ChrisLilley> (adjourned)
15:53:57 <ChrisLilley> kuettel: there is a google office in warsaw, if needed
15:54:36 <ChrisLilley> ... also we could takle post-woff2 plans at tpac
15:55:09 <ChrisLilley> sergey: not sure i can meke it but will be online
15:55:18 <ChrisLilley> jfkthame: do not usually attend
15:56:25 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: tpac an excellent venue for a what is next discussion with a wider group, developers, anounce ahead of time to generate interest.
15:57:14 <ChrisLilley> Vlad: perhaps one day of laundry and one of looking outside the box
15:57:29 <ChrisLilley> (adjourned for realz this time)
15:57:36 <ChrisLilley> rrsagent, make minutes
15:57:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-webfonts-minutes.html ChrisLilley
15:57:43 <ChrisLilley> chair: vlad
15:58:06 <ChrisLilley> rrsagent, make logs public
15:58:13 <ChrisLilley> rrsagent, make minutes
15:58:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/02-webfonts-minutes.html ChrisLilley
15:59:18 <jfkthame> jfkthame has left #webfonts
17:34:02 <Zakim> Zakim has left #webfonts