IRC log of webfonts on 2016-03-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

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