[mpeg-OTspec] AHG on Font Format Kick-off

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

Ken,

Thank you very much for your comments. I made the changes you suggested and uploaded the new version of the document to the AHG file storage, the document can be accessed using the following link:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpeg-OTspec/files/m1xxxx-DraftRequirements_CFS.doc

I formatted the document as an input contribution from AHG, to be submitted for the upcoming WG11 meeting in April.

Thanks again and best regards,
Vladimir


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Ken Lunde
> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:41 PM
> To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
> Cc: David Lemon
> Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] AHG on Font Format Kick-off
> 
> Vladimir,
> 
> Thank you for distributing this document for comments, and for the more
> succinct timeline. I went through the document (w11212-
> DraftRequirements_CFS.doc), and overall it is in great shape, and
> should suffice as-is for the purpose you described.
> 
> I did manage to come up with a small list of minor suggestions:
> 
> 1) Page 1, Section 1, second paragraph: Insert "theoretically" before
> "feasible" in the second line; remove the "a" before "significant
> adverse" in the second line; append "s" to the word "effect" after
> "significant adverse" in the second line; change "format" to "Standard"
> in the third line; and append "s" to the word "solution" in the seventh
> line.
> 
> 2) Page 2, Section 2.1, first paragraph: Remove the hyphen from "multi-
> lingual" in the third line.
> 
> One last comment is the resurfacing of a comment I made earlier about
> the use of the abbreviation "CF" versus "CFS" when used before the word
> "object." Given that CF can be confused with the generic use of
> Composite Font, which can refer to many different legacy
> implementations, the use of CFS makes it *much* clearer that the
> context is CFS and not a legacy format. Upon reading this document, I
> still feel that such a naming is prudent, mainly because the document
> does refer to legacy uses of Composite Fonts.
> 
> I hope this helps...
> 
> -- Ken
> 
> On 2010/02/23, at 11:34, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> 
> > Ken, all,
> >
> > Thank you for your active participation and support of Composite Font
> Standard activity. I uploaded the draft requirements document that we
> discussed and approved during the last ISO MPEG meeting in January. The
> document can be downloaded using the following
> link:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpeg-OTspec/files/w11212-
> DraftRequirements_CFS.zip
> >
> > The next MPEG meeting will be held in April 19-23, and part of our
> mandate is to finalize the requirements and use case document, and to
> prepare a draft text for Call for Proposals where we should clearly
> outline the features of the CFS (including expectations for future
> implementations based on the requirements document) and evaluation
> criteria for submitted proposals, as well as the estimated schedule of
> the development of the CFS specification.
> >
> > I will make a first stub at drafting the text of CFP; meanwhile I
> would like to ask all AHG members to review the draft requirements
> document and submit your comments and proposed changes/clarifications
> (if any). I would expect to have final drafts of both document
> (requirements / use cases, and draft CFP) finalized no later than April
> 12, 2010.
> >
> > I also would like to remind the AHG that the text of the draft
> corrigendum for ISO/IEC 14496-22 OFF is now under open ballot, and that
> we had some comments submitted by Microsoft. We need to discuss and
> finalize the text of the corrigendum and prepare ballot comments to
> have the proposed changes incorporated in the current text.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Vladimir
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-
> OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Lunde
> > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:47 PM
> > To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
> > Cc: David Lemon
> > Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] AHG on Font Format Kick-off
> >
> >
> > Vladimir,
> >
> > Are you planning to drive the schedule for the required bits, such as
> turning the list of requirements for the CFS into something that is no
> longer draft, and issuing the CFP? Unless we have feasible dates
> attached to these milestones, things will continue to delay. As usual,
> if there is anything I can do to push things along, you can count on my
> help and support.
> >
> > Thanks...
> >
> > -- Ken
> >
> > On 2010/02/01, at 14:40, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Ken, all,
> > >
> > > Thank you very much for your efforts and support for CFS
> development activity. I agree with you that any existing technology
> that is potentially a good fit for what we are trying to accomplish
> with CFS should be considered and discussed in details. I am happy to
> hear that Apple is open to contributing their Spliced Font Format as a
> basis for CFS effort, and that they are open to adding support for
> additional elements or attributes.
> > > However, from the AHG perspective - in order to successfully
> evaluate any and all candidate technologies, and determine and finalize
> the set of tags, elements and arguments needed to fulfill the stated
> goals it would be both useful and necessary to create a list of
> requirements we need to address. The requirements, and the open Call
> for Proposals that will follow, would allow us to make sure that we:
> > > - have a strong foundation for evaluating candidate technologies
> (such as Apple's Spliced Font Format, and maybe other solutions,
> including what AHG came up with during the exploration stage), and
> > > - develop a final solution that would fully satisfy the stated
> requirements, possibly by combining the best of all proposals we will
> have submitted in response to CFP. (It could be that we end up taking
> one particular solution as a basis and adding features from other
> solutions we discussed earlier - at this point I am reluctant to try
> and predict the outcome of this effort.)
> > >
> > > I also agree with Ken that CFS should be able to serve both as a
> composite font and as a fallback font mechanism. Nesting and recursion
> can be allowed if necessary, but, again - this is something we as the
> AHG will determine in the process of finalizing CFS requirements.
> > >
> > > Thank you and best regards,
> > > Vladimir
> > >
> > > P.S. I know some of you may wonder why Call for Proposals would
> even be necessary after all the efforts we, as the AHG, put in place to
> engage industry experts and invite them to join the group. Yes, we made
> a concerted effort to make public aware of this activity by
> distributing the information in all relevant public forums; however,
> the ISO process requires that public Call for Proposal should be issued
> to insure that all interested parties are notified about this activity
> through the official channels. In the end, it will only help us ensure
> that we have the best pool of contributors to this activity, even if
> the CFP itself doesn't bring 'new' proposals for consideration.
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-
> OTspec at yahoogroups.com]
> > >> On Behalf Of Ken Lunde
> > >> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 12:29 PM
> > >> To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
> > >> Cc: David Lemon
> > >> Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] AHG on Font Format Kick-off
> > >>
> > >> Vladimir,
> > >>
> > >> I am very glad to see that WG11 is pushing us toward a standard.
> > >>
> > >> With that said, the highest priority for the AHG, in my opinion,
> is to
> > >> determine whether Apple's "Spliced Font Format" is suitable as the
> > >> basis for CFS. Apple confirmed that they are open to this, and
> they are
> > >> also open to adding support for any additional elements or
> attributes,
> > >> as long as they are considered optional. (The vast majority of
> elements
> > >> and attributes are optional, so I don't anticipate any issues.)
> > >>
> > >> To help with this effort, please reference/re-read my 01/15/2010
> email
> > >> to the AHG that summarized Apple's Spliced Font Format.
> > >>
> > >> Secondly, I once brought up the issue of nesting in the context of
> CFS,
> > >> and stated that it should not be allowed due to recursion and
> > >> complexity issues. However, I now believe that this should be
> allowed
> > >> in a specific context, because I believe that we can now
> distinguish
> > >> CFS objects that serve as composite fonts versus as fallback
> fonts. Let
> > >> me explain.
> > >>
> > >> CFS objects can serve two main purposes or functions, specifically
> as
> > >> composite fonts or as fallback fonts. I started going into this
> > >> distinction in my 01/08/2010 post to the mailing list.
> Specifically, a
> > >> CFS object functioning as a composite font requires a unique name,
> > >> meaning a name that is unique from any installed font, and unique
> from
> > >> any other CFS object that is functioning as a composite font.
> However,
> > >> a CFS object that functions as a fallback font takes on the name
> of an
> > >> existing font, which may be a standard font or potentially a CFS
> object
> > >> that functions as a composite font. This means that CFS-savvy OSes
> and
> > >> applications need to be prepared to deal with a CFS object and an
> > >> installed font with the same name, and to prioritize the CFS
> object for
> > >> obvious reasons.
> > >>
> > >> If you consider how fallback fonts work today, they take on the
> name of
> > >> an existing font resource, and describe composite font-like
> behavior,
> > >> such as referencing other font resources to provide glyphs for
> > >> characters that are not supported by the parent font resource.
> > >>
> > >> Getting back to the nesting of CFS objects, I now believe that
> this can
> > >> be allowed in CFS objects as long as what is being nested is a CFS
> > >> object that is functioning as a composite font. Furthermore, I
> propose
> > >> that the nesting depth should be one, meaning a top-level CFS
> object
> > >> that functions as a fallback font can reference one or more CFS
> objects
> > >> that function as composite fonts, but that those "nested" CFS
> objects
> > >> that function as composite fonts cannot reference any CFS objects
> > >> themselves.
> > >>
> > >> Regards...
> > >>
> > >> -- Ken
> > >>
> > >> On 2010/01/28, at 12:39, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Dear AHG,
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> First of all, I'd like to welcome many new members who have
> recently
> > >> joined the group - just for the past couple of weeks our group
> grew
> > >> stronger by 20+ members.
> > >>>
> > >>> At this time, the mandate for the AHG has been extended with new
> work
> > >> items - to produce the report summarizing the results of the
> > >> exploration activities and to propose and develop a timeline for
> WG11
> > >> to achieve stated goals of CFS standardization.
> > >>>
> > >>> The timeline should include the following steps that are part of
> the
> > >> ISO standards development process:
> > >>>
> > >>> - Finalization of complete list of requirements for Composite
> > >> Font Standard - these should include any and all features that we
> > >> believe should be part of the CFS (expected to be finished by the
> next
> > >> WG11 meeting in April 2010);
> > >>>
> > >>> - Creation and publication of the Call for Proposals for
> > >> either existing or developing technical solutions that would
> address
> > >> indentified list of requirements.
> > >>>
> > >>> - Review and analysis of responses to the Call for Proposal,
> > >> and publication of a working draft specification;
> > >>>
> > >>> - Creation of the Committee Draft (Proposed Draft Amendment if
> > >> applicable);
> > >>>
> > >>> - Final Committee Draft ;
> > >>>
> > >>> - Final Draft International Standard.
> > >>>
> > >>> As part of the requirements work, I suggest that we should
> identify
> > >> and document both features that are already supported by known /
> > >> existing technical solutions (such as features proposed by Adobe),
> as
> > >> well as features / capabilities implemented in Apple's Spliced
> Font
> > >> format and other technologies.
> > >>>
> > >>> We should also review and discuss the text of the draft
> corrigendum
> > >> for ISO OFF standard that was prepared at the WG11 meeting last
> week.
> > >> If there are any changes or corrections that need to be made - we
> > >> should review them and bring to the attention of the respective
> > >> National Bodies to be included as part of the ballot comments. I
> have
> > >> uploaded the draft to the AHG files.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thank you,
> > >>>
> > >>> Vladimir
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>