<trackbot> Date: 09 April 2014

<Vlad> zakim this will be 3668

Can provide an update regarding CORS support in Chrome OS (crbug.com/286681). In short, we agreed to work on it.

Schedule: http://www.chromium.org/developers/calendar

Plan for M36: metrics and warnings in devtools

M37: will make the change except if we see huge impact we'll put a stronger warning and make the change in M38

metrics that indicate that we can just skip the intermediate step would be welcomed.

- Next Topic -

WOFF 2.0 discussion about final changes

Raph: I see 2 issues that would potentially affect compatibility. Other issues are editorial
... glyph transformation optional or not. Population of known tags
... need something that maps a number to a four byte tag
... KBX would you talk about Chrome's schedule?

Vlad: meaning of compatibility breaking?

Raph: re reference implementation
... and chrome beta

KenjiBX: postponing WOFF 2.0 in M35 given the risk. Would like to target M36. Hopefully we can reach out consensus during that time frame.

Vlad: from the procedural point of view. Spec as it exists today can't be considered as working draft.
... so it's difficult to talk about compatibility breaking change at this stage (not yet stable).
... shipping WOFF 2.0 too early would limit our ability to make changes to the spec

Raph: we agree with this and are open to improve the spec. That said we really want to get something out there. It feels possible that the number of controversial points (while being true that it's been a short period of time), is very close to convergence point.
... dealing with UA sniffing is not a great place to be in which is why we made the decision to postpone our intent to ship WOFF 2.0 in Chrome for M35.
... (paraphrasing) there is reason to believe that we'll reach a stable state before an official CR status.

Vlad: (referring to other specs; some of the changes might be expanding instead of breaking changes)

Raph: agreeing that there are different levels of compatibility breaking changes. Practical consequence: don't encourage folks to publish fonts in the format until the spec reaches a stable state.

Vlad: did a workshop covering advanced feat of fonts. everything was fine on handouts but got complaints as things started not working later due to changes to specs.

Raph: I would like to do a concerted call for reviewing the spec: helping implementers with a clear spec, and confirming that everyone is ok with the decision.

Vlad: WOFF 2.0 so far is only a creature that the WG knows about (needs more attention, Vlad can reach out to more folks to bring more advices to the spec).
... (explaining the w3c process; Last Call where members are expected to exert a high level of scrutinity)

David: do you think we could target a date for the different stages?

Raph: I believe that we should be able to arrive at the FPWD rather quickly

Vlad: I agree, I believed we would be able to do this today but we're missing key members

David: would it be possible to reach out consensus over email this week or so?

Vlad: (yes)

Raph: (would be great)

David: recapitulating the 2 issues? Anything else?

Vlad: only those 2; the remaining are editorial ones

Raph: I would like that question to be asked on the ML to confirm this understanding. I believe that other open questions were resolved but I want to make sure that this isn't a misunderstanding. This is the perfect time for these concerns to get heard.

Vlad: share the feeling on the closed topics. Re table tags, should be as inclusive as possible

Raph: yes, we only need a mapping

David: will take this action.

Vlad: Johnathan expressed some concerns on one topic; replied but didn't heard anything back. Unclear if he agreed or not.

Raph: (we should clear this up)

Vlad: have 2 arguments: WOFF 2.0 is a font transport mechanism and would be nice to use the same vocabulary/data-types;
... (the other one about ambiguity based on past experience)

David: going back to pre-processing? Do we need some home work before discussing it (collecting data)

Raph: don't see the need for it

Vlad: will ask Johnathan's opinion

David: table tags? Resolve over email? Can take a first pass.
... will take this action item.

Vlad: I see you already have some mapping. These should be OK.

David: is that it?

(lost track a bit)

Vlad: will try his best to collapse 3 descriptions into 1

Raph: will run into the same issue for the triples. An English narrative for each one or those would not work.
... the most important is to make sure that the implementers can understand it.

Vlad: agree.
... (that's a wrap)
... anything else?

KenjiBX: CSS unicode-range in Chrome: still a bug, working on fixing it for M36.

<raph> Vlad: praising Kenji's work as a scribe and wishing him present for more calls

<raph> kenji: will be difficult in the future because of timezones

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: KenjiBX
Inferring Scribes: KenjiBX

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: David KenjiBX M37 Raph Schedule Vlad cslye jhudson joined kenji kuettel trackbot webfonts
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy


WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 09 Apr 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/04/09-webfonts-minutes.html
People with action items: 

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report