Meeting minutes
PR review
Vladmir says "first topic: brief review of all PRs starting with #95" which has already been discussed call before last
Garret: Goal is to allow selective transmission of features, PR adds several fields to the request and response
… Interesting part: defined a default sent of features that are sent regardless of the list requested by the client
… Appendix added to spec with those defaults
List isn't finalized, can be changed, add comments if needed
Vladmir: We seem to be in good shape now
<Vlad> The above is re: PR #95(https://
Vlad: PR has already been closed, want to talk about other PRs that are recently closed or still open
<Vlad> PR #97 (https://
Garrett: PR 97: Allows client to patch from one version of a font to another.
Garrett: This means that data not normally changed between updates can now be changed
<Vlad> PR #98 (https://
Garrett: PR 98: Members wanted to see better integration between this spec and other HTTP specs, such as cache interactions
Garrett: E.G. compatibility with FETCH,
Garrett: Up to the user agent to decide how these interactions are initiated
Garrett: Will merge after call unless there are additional comments
Vlad: Reviewing related issues #63 and #69
Open Issues: https://github.com/w3c/IFT/issues
Vlad: Let's also review the related issues
Garrett: RE issue 93, Clarified can support redirect, can discuss other possibilities at TPAC meeting
skef: May need a separate has key to cache on, but POST-related problems remain
Skef will add some discussion to the issue, and open an issue about a la carte access to the IFT facilities
Vlad: There are quite a few issues labeled "range request",
How do we progress on these issues?
… If we don't have the main proponent of that joining the meetings
Chris: We can send a note to Miles and ask whether he or someone else can join to represent the issue. We don't necessarily need to resolve this before publishing the next draft
Garret: Probably ready to publish another draft.
Vlad: Resolve to publish another draft. Any objections?
(No objections)
RESOLUTION: publish updated IFT draft
Will close #62: Method specific privacy sections
Will discuss #57: "Require supporting both IFT methods by User Agents" at TPAC
Garrett: #30 "method negotiation has potential time wastes in it" can probably be closed
Garrett: on #28 "Font Collection support", could add a font index parameter, so that fonts that are part of a collection can be patched individually. Too complicated to patch every font in a collection together
Chris: Suggest using a PostScript name rather than an index
Chris: More robust in the face of font upgrades, such as those that add fonts to a collection
Garret: Makes sense to use what CSS is using to identify the font
<chris> Defined in https://
Vlad: Next topic, TPAC schedule and demo opportunity
Tentative schedule: Meeting room available for all of Tuesday
Doesn't overlap with CSS meeting, which is Friday.
Tuesday seems like the best option given that that's the call day.
Vlad: With luck there won't be additional changes to the schedule
Vlad: Two agenda links, one for the demo. Want to discuss whether IFT should do a demo this year
Garret: Can commit to a demo based on the existing code
Garret: Could use a COLR v1 emoji font, in addition to the usual CJK case
Vlad: That's it for the announced agenda