Meeting minutes
video demo at https://
Studio株式会社 is working on an IFT implementation for production use
recent updates
<Skef> There was some markup added to capture requirements programmatically for the purpose of referecing them in tests
RESOLUTION: Chris will update the spec changes section and we will publish an updated CR draft.
<Skef> The changes just mentioned more or less capture what has changed since the Candidate draft publication
https://
<Garret> Skef: add a topic to talk about encoder testing.
Encoder tests are not out of scope; they would need to compare an original and an encoded font
(Discussion of "should" conformance requirements and testability)
We may tag the should-level statements
Review of conformance statements
<Skef> Normative requirements in spec: We discussed that the format-level requirements (the "musts") have been marked so they can be pulled out for reference in tests. The more flexible requirements that ensure that font behavior is preserved ("the shoulds") have not been marked with spans but may be in the future as a result of encoding testing plans.
RESOLUTION: Make Appendix A normative
https://
<Skef> We subsequently decided that the default layout tag testing situation was complicated enough that we are tabling the decision to make it normative and will discuss the issue further in future meetings.
IFT Encoder and segmentation
(slides to be made available in due course)
Conformance Tests, continued
<Garret> https://