-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Comments
No need to review. |
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! |
The FAST checklist review for this working draft are the same as previously. |
Reminder, any comments on IFT from an A11y perspective? |
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.
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: