Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Incremental Font Transfer 2021-09-14 #16

Open
svgeesus opened this issue Sep 14, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Incremental Font Transfer 2021-09-14 #16

svgeesus opened this issue Sep 14, 2021 · 4 comments
Labels
pending This issue needs to get a reviewer assigned to it REVIEW REQUESTED SR Self-review to be checked

Comments

@svgeesus
Copy link

We have conducted a self-review of our spec [Incremental Font Transfer](Incremental Font Transfer), and the results can be found at FAST Checklist review for IFT

Please check our findings.

  • Do you need a reply by a particular date?
    No, we just published FPWD

Other comments:

This specification covers transfer of just part of a font, rather than the whole font; and then transferring more as needed behind the scenes. Use of the font is with CSS, same as normal. No other aspect of text rendering is altered; the font just seems to load faster.

@svgeesus svgeesus added SR Self-review to be checked REVIEW REQUESTED pending This issue needs to get a reviewer assigned to it labels Sep 14, 2021
@michael-n-cooper michael-n-cooper removed the pending This issue needs to get a reviewer assigned to it label Sep 29, 2021
@michael-n-cooper
Copy link
Member

No need to review.

@svgeesus
Copy link
Author

FYI: A new WD of IFT is available. This addresses review feedback from the earlier proposals. There is no longer a Range Request vs Patch Subset choice, and there is no longer any special protocol required. Compared to the earlier proposals, the risks of fingerprinting have been reduced and there should no longer be an impact on CDN caching.

Because this is a substantial rewrite, we have an Explainer

We do not see any changes between this draft and earlier ones, from an A11y perspective, but of course any review is welcome!

@svgeesus
Copy link
Author

The FAST checklist review for this working draft are the same as previously.

@svgeesus svgeesus added the pending This issue needs to get a reviewer assigned to it label Aug 28, 2024
@svgeesus
Copy link
Author

Reminder, any comments on IFT from an A11y perspective?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
pending This issue needs to get a reviewer assigned to it REVIEW REQUESTED SR Self-review to be checked
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants