[mpeg-OTspec] New "Composite Font Standard" document

Wed Dec 16 00:22:54 CET 2009

Will do. Any other changes before I issue a new version sans "optional" references?

-- Ken

________________________________
From: Levantovsky, Vladimir
To: leonardo at chiariglione.org ; Ken Lunde
Cc: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue Dec 15 14:53:31 2009
Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] New "Composite Font Standard" document
I would like to say that I completely agree with Leonardo. In addition, I also would like to remind us all that we agreed to defer the discussion of “mandatory/optional” features until after we have the draft specification ready, and after we can evaluate the actual impact of each proposed tag / attribute on a decoder implementation complexity.

I think that in light of our prior discussions and the agreement we’ve reached it would be reasonable to simply drop the notion of optional components from consideration in the current draft.

Thank you,
Vladimir

From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Leonardo Chiariglione
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:08 PM
To: 'Ken Lunde'
Cc: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] New "Composite Font Standard" document

Ken,
To me the document is fine the way it is, save for the "optional" part.
The text

NOTES: Although not yet reflected in this document, the notion of "optional"
refers to an attribute whose inclusion is deemed to be optional according to
this specification. Likewise, some attributes are required. A future version
of this document will make the "optional" versus "required" distinction
clear, for both tags and their attributes.

As a matter of philosophy I object to the use of the term "optional" in a
standard, because the purpose of a standard is to tell users what they
should do to achieve interoperability.
Of course I know that not everybody may have the same notion or requirement
of interoperability. As you may remember from an earlier post, since its
early days MPEG has struggled with this reality and has come up with the
"profile and level" approach.
Instead of having a placeholder for "optional" with the intention to give it
a meaning later, I would like to give a meaning to "optional" and then find
a place for it.
As I said interoperability requirements are not the same for all, so there
is nothing new for MPEG in your request, but I would like to get a
formalisation of the thing before admitting it in
Leonardo

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Lunde [mailto:lunde at adobe.com<mailto:lunde%40adobe.com>]
Sent: 15 December 2009 19:41
To: leonardo at chiariglione.org<mailto:leonardo%40chiariglione.org>
Cc: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] New "Composite Font Standard" document

Leonardo and others,

I spent a significant part of my morning continuing the editing and refining
of this document, and have issued a 2009/12/15 version. See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpeg-OTspec/files/CompositeFontStandard-200912
15_kl.doc

I also hosted the same file on my website, along with a PDF version:

http://lundestudio.com/PDF/CompositeFontStandard-20091215_kl.doc
http://lundestudio.com/PDF/CompositeFontStandard-20091215_kl.pdf

Regards...

-- Ken

On 2009/12/15, at 4:12, Leonardo Chiariglione wrote:

> Ken,
> Excellent.
> I have done the following
> 1. Converted your pdf file to a doc file (MS word is the format
adopted by MPEG because it allows reuse of text, a basic feature in a
collaborative environment like this)
> 2. Edited the file in track change mode
> 3. Changed the file name by using yyyymmdd_lc
> 4. Attached the file to this email
> You may think that some changes are not essential and there may be
elements of truth in this. However, if you agree to the changes we get
agreement on issues that I believe are of substance.
> I will try and explain my point
> 1. The title of the first section has been changed to "Design
features". OS independence is a consequence of the fact that CFS is an
information representation standard, so it has been taken out of the
bulleted list
> 2. At the abstract level there are 4 actors: creator, encoder,
decoder, consumer. Don't let's talk about the names, yet. If you don't like
the names I am fine with calling the actors A,B, C and D, Creator and
consumer are humans (maybe there are more general cases when they are not,
but let's stick to humans for the moment).
> 3. Creator has intentions that he captures in his encoder - an
application
> 4. Consumer has intentions that he expresses by setting his decoder
> 5. The standard only addresses the decoder. The document is silent on
exactly "what" of the decoder is specified. I guess that the interface
through which the consumer sets the decoder is not part of the standard, but
then it would be good to say this explicitly (note that all this is work
saved for the moment in which the standard will be written)
> 6. In MPEG we use the name conformance, but you can read it as
compliance
> Please feel free to react on anything I did.
> For me this is a very pleasant experience.
> Leonardo
>
> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec%40yahoogroups.com>] On
Behalf Of Ken Lunde
> Sent: 14 December 2009 19:07
> To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [mpeg-OTspec] New "Composite Font Standard" document
>
>
> All,
>
> In an effort to move this along, I spent the morning incorporated
Leonardo's comments and suggestions, and produced a new version of the
document. You should have received a "new document notification" email with
the following URL:
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpeg-OTspec/files/CompositeFontStandard-121420
09.pdf
>
> I also hosted the same file on my website:
>
> http://lundestudio.com/PDF/CompositeFontStandard-12142009.pdf
>
> When you have a chance, please read this document and provide feedback.
>
> Regards...
>
> -- Ken
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.106/2563 - Release Date:
12/13/09 19:47:00
>
> <CompositeFontStandard-20091214_lc.doc>

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.427 / Virus Database: 270.14.106/2563 - Release Date: 12/15/09
07:52:00

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20091215/b4a22488/attachment.html>