w3c
Wide review and Implementation status, Candidate Changes
Four of the six WOFF 2.0 candidate changes are typos, or obvious for-completeness things (Uint32). Two should be tested.
- [x] Candidate Correction 1: for a typo no tests needed
- [ ] Candidate Correction 2: preserve optional symple glyph overlap flag
- [x] Candidate Correction 3: definition of the UInt32 type was omitted no tests needed
- [ ] Candidate Correction 4: polarity of on-curve flag bit
- [x] Candidate Correction 5: typo in list numbering no tests needed
- [x] Candidate Correction 6: update IETF links no tests needed
Ping to wonder about testing for CC2 and CC4.
The next stage will be to fold in the CC which are merely editorial, and to make CC2 and CC4 Proposed Corrections. This will trigger an AC Review. So we need to have tests for this. or otherwise to show that existing software handles these correctly.
This change has been tested, and found to be 100% backward compatible - legacy WOFF2 decoders do not care about reserved bit values, and do not expect or read an additional bit array at the end of the glyph table. Thus, legacy decoders continue to function as always, and updated decoders now preserve this optional bit.
Do such updated decoders exist?
Resolution: the four editorial changes are agreed as editorial Resolution: publish an updated WOFF2 Recommendation with two proposed corrections
https://www.w3.org/2022/01/18-webfonts-minutes.html#t01 https://www.w3.org/2022/01/18-webfonts-irc#T17-11-40
Updated WOFF2 Recommendation with four editorial changes folded in and two Proposed Corrections, should be published Thursday 10 March 2022.
This will trigger a 60-day exclusion period, solely for the Proposed Corrections.
On 10 March 2022 the WOFF2 specification was republished with two Proposed Corrections. These will become normative after a 60-day period of review. The previous four other Candidate Corrections were deemed editorial and have already been merged.
Here are the questions we need to answer for the next stage (Request Director's Approval to incorporate Proposed Amendments into a Recommendation):
Document title, URLs, estimated publication date
Abstract
Status
Link to group's decision to request the update
[TODO: eg minutes, CfC in GitHub, email]
Link to Last Call for Review of Proposed Amendments
[TODO: eg minutes, CfC in GitHub, email]
Wide Review of Proposed Amendments
[TODO: list of issues? email thread? horizontal review?]
Issues addressed
[TODO: you may scope this to issues related to the proposed amendments]
Link to internal AC Review results
[TODO: include link to WBS, and any link to internal follow-up]
Formal Objections
[TODO: link to those if any. All Formal Objects must have a public record]
Implementation
[TODO: show adequate implementation experience of the proposed amendments]
Patent disclosures
For issues here is the curve flag one where we did the same as the MTX Express submission: and the overlap flag one was actually raised on the google implementation not on our spec, then Vlad added it to our agenda
For testing I see an action to create a test
For implementation experience, Dave Crossland mentioned handling this in fonttools and Garret alerted us that overlapSimpleBitmap was supported in the WOFF2 encoder/decoder and mentioned potential support in fonttools.
Anything else I am missing?
Oh and once we have all the info required then we need a minuted decision to request the update
The C++ WOFF2 does this and will be in Chrome m102. Tests are not yet in in the WOFF2 tests repo but the plan is to export them We are not sure regarding fonttools.
The two overlapBitmap tests are not showing up in the WPT results so I guess the test suite needs to be rebuilt and the two new tests submitted to WPT as a PR.
The two overlapBitmap tests are not showing up in the WPT results
Um, nevermind. Those are Decoder tests, not UserAgent tests. So of course they don't show up!