W3C

– DRAFT –
Web Fonts Working Group Teleconference

21 March 2023

Attendees

Present
Garret, skef, Vlad
Regrets
-
Chair
-
Scribe
Garret

Meeting minutes

<Vlad> Co-chairs: Garret, Vlad

scribenick Garret

recent PR review

Garret: first major change made since last call, PR to remove PatchResponse has been made. Also ran it by the Chrome folks working on the shared dictionary compression effort.

Vlad: will this impact our ability to progress the IFT spec?

Garret: no I don't think we will need to block on that effort, but should try to stay in sync with that effort as it progresses.

Garret: Second major change is we moved the range request portion of the document out. Skef raised an issue asking whether this might limit our ability to continue to work on range request. That won't be a problem, in the future once work on range request resumes we can merge it back into the main document.

Vlad: splitting allows us to send one part for review while continuing to work on the range request part.

Vlad: if we ultimately want to keep them split, we'd probably need to go to three documents (one for common) the other two for the two methods.

Garret: also updated privacy section to make it more accurate about the use of checksums, they are no longer for error detection.

Skef: I ran into an issue compiling the spec.

Garret: yeah I hit this too, seems to be a bug in the latest bikeshed should work on 3.10. I'll look into it and possibly file a bug against bikeshed

Open IFT issues

Vlad: client state issue can be closed.

Vlad: explainer is being worked on.

Garret: client conformance tests, planning to start those soon now that things are stabilizing.

Garret: last remaining issues are the privacy issues.

Skef: this is a challenging issue. Needs to be done in a way that you can't tell what's added noise.

Garret: agreed.

Skef: another angle is that IFT will expose what scripts are being read. Don't think we need to fix it, but should at least mention it.

Garret: agreed.

Garret: think we're probably ready for TAG review at this point.

Skef: how does the split document affect TAG review? Can we ask them to review the range request part later?

Vlad: yes, that should be fine.

RESOLUTION: make spec available for TAG review after any outstanding changes are incorporated.

Vlad: regarding the charter, the extension was approved. It's expired now (marc 15th). We've got a draft charter up for AC vote.

Vlad: vote was closed March 10th.

<Vlad> Proposed new WG charter: https://www.w3.org/2023/02/webfonts-2023-ac.html

Vlad: no need to rejoin group, because the new charter has no changes in deliverables.

Vlad: IP commitments that have been made are still in place.

Skef: one last thing, there's a specification for streaming compression in browsers. It seems to be Google driven and it doesn't support brotli right now (just gzip). Given that brotli is the font specific streaming and generally useful we should have brotli included in that spec.

Garret: agreed, I'll track down that people working on that and request brotli is added.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Compression_Streams_API

<skef> https://wicg.github.io/compression/#compression-stream

Skef: has two Google authors.

Garret: great, I can reach out to them and ask about adding brotli.

Vlad: tenative next call on apr. 4th

Garret: sounds good.

Summary of resolutions

  1. make spec available for TAG review after any outstanding changes are incorporated.
Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by scribe.perl version 210 (Wed Jan 11 19:21:32 2023 UTC).

Diagnostics

No scribenick or scribe found. Guessed: Garret

All speakers: Garret, Skef, Vlad

Active on IRC: Garret, skef, Vlad