swickr
commented
6 years ago I have reviewed the implementation report for WOFF File Format 2.0 Candidate Recommendation. In doing so two items surfaced:
-
The reference to CSS3 Fonts should be normative as it is used normatively in section 2.
-
Per the implementation report, while there are two tested implementations of encoding and decoding of font collections no user agent is yet shown to use them after decoding. Please add a sentence to the SoTD indicating that the browser support is expected to improve.
With that, I am satisfied that WOFF File Format 2.0 may advance to Proposed Recommendation and approve this transition request on behalf of the Director.
svgeesus
Document title, URLs, estimated publication date
WOFF File Format 2.0 https://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/ First Tuesday or Thursday after moratorium and after successful transition
Abstract
Based on experience with WOFF 1.0, which is widely deployed, this specification was developed to provide improved compression and thus lower use of network bandwidth, while still allowing fast decompression even on mobile devices. This is achieved by combining a content-aware preprocessing step and improved entropy coding, compared to the Flate compression used in WOFF 1.0.
Status
https://dev.w3.org/webfonts/WOFF2/spec/#status (as CR)
Link to group's decision to request transition
https://www.w3.org/2017/12/13-webfonts-minutes.html
Changes
Changes since CR
Requirements satisfied
See WOFF 2.0 Evaluation Report https://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF20ER/
Dependencies met (or not)
All normative references are mature (W3C Recommendation, IETF RFC, etc).
Wide Review
This specification is implemented in recent shipping versions of all major browsers, is supported by font foundries, and font authoring tools.
Issues addressed
No issues raised since publication of the 15 March 2016 Candidate Recommendation
Formal Objections
None
Implementation
Patent disclosures
https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/44556/status