[wg/webfonts] WebFonts Working Group Recharter

[svgeesus]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter

diff to template
diff to current charter

chair dashboard

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

• Existing

• Existing WG recharter

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

Communities suggested for outreach

Font foundries and font vendors, particularly those specializing in fonts for languages with:

• large character repertoires (e.g. Chinese, Japanese)
• complex shaping (e.g. Indic, Arabic)

Known or potential areas of concern

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? (this strategy funnel issue, a different github repo, email, ...)
This issue

Anything else we should think about as we review?

Note: proposed chairs should be copied @... on this issue.

@vlevantovsky @garretrieger

[himorin]

IFT has been merged into one specification (and received mass update following HR/WR) during current period, and I suppose we should mention about it in history table.

[svgeesus]

That wasn't a chartering change, but sure it can be mentioned in the history.

[ruoxiran]

no comment or request from APA.

[himorin]

No comment or request from i18n

[svgeesus]

Any comments from a privacy point of view? That is the one remaining HR needed before taking the proposed charter to TiLT.

[plehegar]

No comment from Privacy WG

[svgeesus]

Thanks @plehegar

[svgeesus]

AC Review started 17 Feb, ends 19 March.

[simoneonofri]

even if the review has already started, no comments from Security.

We're working on a generic File Format Threat Model, such as the one described here:

PLS: Parsing/Loading/Serializing
CD: Compression/Decompression
EEC: Embed Executable Code (e.g., scripts)
LER: Links and external resources
MM: Metadata manipulation
DI: Data Integrity

[svgeesus]

even if the review has already started, no comments from Security.

Thanks for confirming, @simoneonofri