Meeting minutes
IFT spec review
https://
Garret: presenting an overview of structural changes to the spec content (see link ^)
Garret: Format 2 isn't in the draft yet but is going to be added soon.
Garret: Additional parts and minor editorial changes will be added too.
Skef: submitted PR with proposed editorial changes
<Chris> Reviewed and approved the proposed editorial changes
Skef: discussing different patch formats and how they should (should not) be combined.
Skef: some formats are "per table" type updates, and some are not - mixing them together doesn't seem to make sense.
<Chris> That table partitioning seems better to me, @skef
Skef: different types of updates will be given different keys (IDs) for glyph type updates vs. generic Brotli patches, this would simplify things.
Garret: makes sense to consider doing this; we do need to consider implications of this for future spec updates.
Continued discussion of IDs for sets of independent and dependent patches.
Additional clarifications in the spec would be needed to describe the relationships between different types of patches.
skef: having different [numbered] formats and then use tags to identify corresponding changes might be a sourcee of confusion, suggestion to unify format numbers and tags used.
Garret: recent changes allow using glyphIDs derived from 'cmap'.
Continued discussion of proposed changes to the IFT spec.
(see also https://
Adding Encoder Requirements to the IFT spec
(see email thread: https://
skef: Emails exchanged on the WG list articulate some of the concerns regarding specifying requirements for IFT encoder
skef: sometimes, legal questions are raised when fonts licensed using traditional licenses are then used with new technologies developed / introduced after the license was written.
skef: potential source for confusion could be if the use of IFT is considered something that is not traditionally seen as a font subset permitted by existing licenses.
skef: adding hard normative requirements for encoder would potentially help aleviate these concerns.
Garret and Skef discussing what set of potential [minimal] spec changes might be sufficient.
… and where changes from "should" to "must" may be needed.
Garret: consider adding requirements that specify existing font vs. font subset relationships: identical rendering results, no changes to font behavior/functionality, etc.
… and possibly extending a font subset section that defines how subset would work.
See WOFF2 spec (the last two paragraphs of clause 5: https://
Vlad: we probably should consider adding similar statements in the IFT spec w.r.t. subsetting.
Next call: tentatively scheduled on March 19, we may revise the target date based on the progress / agenda topics.