Web Fonts WG recharter

[svgeesus]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter:

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• Existing WG recharter

• If this is a charter extension or revision, link a diff from previous charter, and any issue discussion:

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, and security. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Communities suggested for outreach:

Known or potential areas of concern:

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? charter GH

Anything else we should think about as we review?

[himorin]

some quite minor comments:

• some guidance text (for charter editors) remains in section 3
• does Range Request specification (not one in IFT, but standalone one) still under development? (= no need to add remark about merged?)
• 10. Patent Disclosures section (for IG) is kept left
• charter history table lacks links to two recent charters

[r12a]

This may not be appropriate for the charter text, but i wondered whether it's in scope to look at how the font transfer technology affects or is handled by offline reading of web pages, including saving pages from the browser. Not sure whether there's a good solution, but seems to me that it would be good to be clear about whether this is or is not in scope.

[svgeesus]

Thanks @himorin ! Fixed the guidance text, the IG disclosures section, and added the rechartering links.

It is true that the Range Request part of IFT, originally published as a separate FPWD, has been merged with the Patch-Subset part of IFT. However, due to unequal progress on the two parts, the WG is considering un-merging them again so Range Request can proceed at a slower pace.

Also, in terms of exclusion opportunities, they are still two separate publications.

So for this rechartering is is best to list them separately, giving the WG flexibility to continue them as one merged or two separate specifications.

[svgeesus]

@r12a I would imagine that offline reading is in scope as it is not excluded, so I don't think the charter needs a change here.

However, an issue on offline reading and saved web pages could usefully be raised against IFT to ensure that important aspect does not get forgotten. In particular does a local save count as a new origin or is it still attached to the origin from which it is downloaded? That affects what happens if the user traverses a link to another page on the original website while reading the saved version.

[ruoxiran]

no comments from APA.

[himorin]

no comment and suggestion from i18n

[himorin]

It is true that the Range Request part of IFT, originally published as a separate FPWD, has been merged with the Patch-Subset part of IFT. However, due to unequal progress on the two parts, the WG is considering un-merging them again so Range Request can proceed at a slower pace.

Also, in terms of exclusion opportunities, they are still two separate publications.

So for this rechartering is is best to list them separately, giving the WG flexibility to continue them as one merged or two separate specifications.

Thank you for comment and sharing backgrounds. And, I suppose it might be better to mention that as current status in the list of deliverables, not to make confusion from wider community when this draft goes out.

[svgeesus]

@samuelweiler Any comments from privacy or security standpoint?

[svgeesus]

W3m review requested 17 Dec 2022

[svgeesus]

05 Jan 2023 w3m: reviewers are PLH and Alan

[svgeesus]

Comments from Alan addressed.

[svgeesus]

@plh any comments on this charter, before it goes off to the AC?

[svgeesus]

Comments from PLH addressed. WBS created, draft sent to Comm.

[svgeesus]

Charter approved, announced.