[mpeg-OTspec] Re: A path through the thicket

[Ken Lunde]

Leonardo, Vladimir & others,

Attached is a revised version of the document, with the required/ 
optional aspects of the tags removed.

My intention of indicating "required" or "optional" stemmed from the  
fact that the information associated with each is declared via its  
attributes, which then suggests that at least one attribute must be  
required, otherwise it means that a tag can be specified without any  
data. I figured that the "Target" attribute made the most sense as  
being required. In any case, this revised version has that information  
removed.

I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience that this caused.

Oh, and have a safe and enjoyable Thanksgiving Day holiday!

-- Ken

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20091125/4b26e0cb/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------


On 2009/11/25, at 10:27, Leonardo Chiariglione wrote:

>
> Vladimir,
>
>
>
> I believe we agreed to defer the discussions related to mandatory/ 
> optional nature of any tag/attribute until after we have complete  
> functional descriptions of all XML tags we believe would be  
> necessary / useful for Composite Fonts spec.
>
> This is very much the MPEG approach. First we develop the tools and  
> then we define profiles, i.e. groups of tools (groups of XML tags,  
> in this case) that are useful for a given purpose.
>
> Terms we do not use are ?mandatory? and ?optional?. In the  
> MPEG language everything is mandatory in a profile. The point is  
> that the profile itself may not be mandatory because we do not want  
> to impose on all users the use of all tools.
>
> Leonardo
>
>
>
>
>
> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg- 
> OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Sent: 25 November 2009 18:52
> To: Ken Lunde; mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] Re: A path through the thicket
>
>
>
>
>
> Ken,
>
>
>
> Thank you very much for putting together the draft. I believe we  
> agreed to defer the discussions related to mandatory/optional nature  
> of any tag/attribute until after we have complete functional  
> descriptions of all XML tags we believe would be necessary / useful  
> for Composite Fonts spec.
>
>
>
> For convenience and easy access I put the document into the Files  
> section of the AHG http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpeg-OTspec/files/CompositeFont-11242009.pdf 
> .
>
>
>
> I would like to ask the AHG members to review the list of tags and  
> attributes Ken prepared and to provide your input ? any corrections  
> and proposals for additional tags/attributes that you believe would  
> be needed are very much appreciated. Once we complete this list, we  
> will review and discuss the potential impact /cost / complexity of  
> implementation for each element of the spec and make our final  
> determination of the mandatory vs. optional status for each element.  
> For now ? please disregard this in the current draft and review the  
> spec from the functional point of view.
>
>
>
> Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!
>
> Vladimir
>
>
>
>
>
> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg- 
> OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Lunde
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 2:46 PM
> To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] Re: A path through the thicket [1  
> Attachment]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Attachment(s) from Ken Lunde included below]
>
> Vladimir and others,
>
> Please see the attached file, which I hope may represent a start at
> creating a working draft of the specification.
>
> Regards...
>
> -- Ken
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.76/2519 - Release Date:  
> 11/25/09 07:31:00
>
>
>