Meeting minutes
Date 07 Jul 2026
Welcome & Administrivia
DD
AAC
Welcome & Administrivia
DD
matatk: Notes we have PR from Abhinav
matatk: Will re-review as requested following Abhinav's adjustments in response to first feedback cycle
Abhinav: Incorporated a few, and commented on others
Abhinav: Noting duplication with spec and Explainer
janina: Just a comment -- we're best practices not normative
matatk: Yes, will live in the same repo and we can avoid duplication of content
matatk: But aimed at different audiences
matatk: Explainer shows design trade-offs and choices. That wouldn't go into our BP Note
matatk: e.g. we started with WKU
matatk: Have seen recent examples using WKU that seem to be headed into the concerns that disuaded us from that approach
matatk: We don't want sites figuring out their own way to solve that
janina: that argues for us figuring it out sooner not later
matatk: Yes, and TAG will help.
<matatk> matatk: For reference, TAG is collecting some related cases (no need to comment on this): w3ctag/
janina: Asks whether we might publish before TPAC?
matatk: We need to figure out subsites and also cross ref our DD with COGA
matatk: But FPWD before TPAC with an Editor's Note about the above
matatk: We want to avoid specifying UI and see what different implementors do
matatk: We probably want to be careful about how deeply we specify subsites
matatk: Some you might want to know from the root; others likely not
matatk: Figuring that out is important
matatk: subsites is different from all the others we have
matatk: How do we know the name? Do we show it?
matatk: Also, we're interested in moving to link sets later, so we should protect that prospective enhancement
matatk: If our approach takes off, link sets is a useful enhancement
Abhinav: we can add a discussion in the doc about what and why of link sets
janina: Asks about the UI implication?
matatk: It's about how much we reveal and where that could affect our backend
matatk: We will benefit from review sooner
Symbols
Russell: Update on font creation ...
Russell: Installed all and all appears functioning
Russell: All looking good!
Russell: Have had distractions in the form of crashed websites
Russell: Spec from Microsoft is over 2500pp, I've looked through it
Russell: 126 tags available to us
Russell: ccmp for emoji -- we should use
Russell: as opposed to liga for ligature
Russell: There's also a customization opportunity
Russell: Only codes we'll be using are Bliss space, so no conflict with emoji which have their own space inUnicode
Russell: Tool looks really good
Russell: We'll have to consider some choices, e.g. how color is used
Russell: We will have no need to install fonts, simply select which on the web
matatk: Pages can offer fonts
matatk: Not share they're shared across origins
Russell: Downloadable, but only grabs the gliphys needed
janina: Concerned that users have consistent fonts across sites for same meaning
matatk: We can work that out
Russell: Is so well known how to do this
matatk: Proposing font providers host on a CDN
matatk: How does page to know which to use
Russell: The browser knows
matatk: Page provides URI
Russell: Not, user's browser has a configuration with the URI
Russell: Weill be easy enough to gen fonts from this tool I'm using, so we can test approaches
matatk: Options always a good thing