Just to add a pair of unfamiliar eyes to this review, the implementation report and test results look quite good: [1] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/WOFF2/Implementation.html
Only nit: * The decoder test results show a single test "validation-off-012" with no passing implementation: [2] https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/WOFF2/Decoder_results.html Since the implementation report [1] does explicitly have an explanation for the User Agent non passing tests "The remaining nonpassing tests are believed to be fixed by ...", I think it is reasonable to request that the implementation report also explain "validation-off-012" appears to have no passing implementation (is it an optional feature? waiting for libraries to be updated? etc.) I suggest we vote FOR Recommendation, with only a request to add an explanation to the implementation report as to why "validation-off-012" is non-passing. For us: * Kevin or Jonthan, do you know when we will (or if we've already) incorporate(d) "this change to the Google WOFF2 library" (https://github.com/google/woff2/commit/e6579e6b128b4178f319d3a41acf0553a47a037f) as called out in the implementation report [1], and can subsequently provide updated test results? Thanks, Tantek On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:29 PM, Kevin Brosnan <kbros...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes we are an implementer. WOFF 2.0 was enabled in Firefox 39, > released 2015-06-30. > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1084026 and > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@font-face#Browser_compatibility > > Kevin Brosnan > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:40 AM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote: >> A W3C Proposed Recommendation is available for the membership of >> W3C (including Mozilla) to vote on, before it proceeds to the final >> stage of being a W3C Recomendation: >> >> WOFF (Web Open Font Format) File Format 2.0 >> https://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF2/ >> https://w3c.github.io/woff/woff2/ >> Deadline for responses: Sunday, February 11, 2018 >> >> If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the >> review, please say so in this thread. Ideally, such comments should >> link to github issues filed against the specification. (I'd note, >> however, that there have been previous opportunities to make >> comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues >> for the first time at this stage.) >> >> Given that this is something that I believe we implement, we should >> be voting on this, even if that vote is just to support without any >> comments. I suspect Jonathan Kew knows what the status of our >> implementation is, and about whether we should be raising any >> issues. >> >> -David >> >> -- >> 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 >> 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂 >> Before I built a wall I'd ask to know >> What I was walling in or walling out, >> And to whom I was like to give offense. >> - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dev-platform mailing list >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >> > _______________________________________________ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
