Comments (23)
@vlevantovsky @garretrieger my feeling is that we should wrap up any outstanding edits and then republish the spec before asking for TAG review. I also need to write an explainer before we ask for their review.
Security has had plenty of time to respond, we don't need to wait longer; marking their review as complete due to timeout.
from ift.
I18n issues raised:
- usage of terminology 'codepoints' in patch subset spec.
- Supporting fonts with composite glyphs via range-request
from ift.
Privacy issues raised:
- Proposal would allow pages to learn how the user is interacting with the site
- Repeat fingerprinting analysis assuming a malicious font serve
- Including network state is a privacy harm (and maybe not needed)
- Define functionality in terms of fetch() (or otherwise make sure that caching / storage policy matches the rest of the platform)
from ift.
Security should be given a second change to review, once we publish the merged spec (they never got a chance to look at the FPWD of the separate Range Request spec)
from ift.
The two open privacy issues need further discussion, because I think we are talking at cross purposes, but I am optimistic that they can be closed relatively quickly
from ift.
I'd like to request TAG review once we publish the merged spec, though I think it would be preferable to do the network perf review first, to save them telling us to go do that :)
from ift.
Adding network performance review as suggested in #74 by @mnot
from ift.
Further review progress pending on /TR publication of merged spec
from ift.
The merged spec has been published and the history indicates that the separate Range Request spec is superseded by the merged IFT spec
from ift.
from ift.
Web Perf WG review requested 28 June 2022
from ift.
IETF HTTP WG review requested 28 June 2022
from ift.
from ift.
Response from Martin Thomson raises several issues, which we should track as individual GH issues.
Apparently the rationale from the PFE report was not obvious, and I responded on that already and will add an issue.
from ift.
Minutes of 7 July Perf WG meeting
from ift.
Response from Martin Thomson raises several issues, which we should track as individual GH issues.
This is now done:
from ift.
Minutes of 7 July Perf WG meeting called for any new issues to be raised here and none have.
from ift.
There are zero open privacy issues so marking privacy review as completed.
from ift.
All the issues from Martin Thomson are now closed, so marking the IETF HTTP WG Review as closed
from ift.
Sounds good, we can discuss what's left to do at the next working group call. Should we also split out the range request specification before republishing and asking for a TAG review?
from ift.
Should we also split out the range request specification before republishing and asking for a TAG review?
I think so, there are a bunch of issues tagged Range Request and it is advancing more slowly than Patch Subset.
from ift.
OK I took a pass at splitting here: #138
I kept the split simple, just moved the range request specific section out while keeping the range request bits in the "common" section around in the main document.
from ift.
I think that was a good call.
from ift.
Related Issues (20)
- Negotiation algorithm is not ideal HOT 6
- Compression performance tradeoffs HOT 4
- It'd be interesting to discuss markup discoverability HOT 2
- Advice on optimal arrangement for range requests? HOT 5
- Bikeshed supports http header autolinks HOT 2
- Transfer coding for compression won't work HOT 4
- Novel, NIH things HOT 10
- Ease of font re-ordering for performance HOT 5
- Optimize for one page, many pages, or both? HOT 6
- Poor cacheing properties HOT 19
- Why do we have two methods HOT 6
- Questions about section 4.4: Client HOT 1
- Consider placing client state as a table in the font. HOT 2
- Create an explainer for the IFT Patch Subset specification. HOT 6
- Client conformance tests
- Add QUERY as a HTTP method type used for patch subset. HOT 1
- IFT and offline reading HOT 3
- Privacy Considerations says checksum is for error correction
- Condisderation HOT 1
- Can't generate html HOT 5
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from ift.