[mpeg-OTspec] Proposed changes to the OFF specification

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

Dear all,

I would like to once again bring to your attention the fact that there is a liaison statement from ISO SC34/WG2 group suggesting to make the following changes in the OpenType / OFF specifications.

Proposal: in OS/2 table - modify the description of the Panose field (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/os2.htm#pan) by removing the names of the fields and making the explicit reference to the Panose spec. The reason for this change (as was stated in the liaison letter) is that current filed names are defined by one particular section of the Panose spec, and only relevant if that particular section is used to determine Panose values. Other sections use slightly different set of Panose values, and additional specification is required to classify non-Latin character sets.

So, a possible way to address this comment is to keep the existing text for Format, Title and other descriptive parts, but to change the text of the table to define it as 10-byte array with value names defined by the Panose spec.

We have to make a decision whether we accept or reject this proposed change by the end of day on July 20 (Wednesday this week). I have not received any objections yet to this change, if I do not hear otherwise by July 20 I will consider this proposal as approved by the AHG.

Thank you,
Vladimir



> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 10:19 AM
> To: James Cloos; OTspec
> Cc: suzuki toshiya
> Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] Proposed changes to the OFF specification
> 
> On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 5:52 PM James Cloos wrote:
> >
> > It seems that dropping the panose info would make accurate
> > classification not more likely but rather less likely.
> >
> 
> Agree, but I don't think dropping Panose is what's been proposed. The
> proposal (read the last sentence of the section entitled "Discussion in
> SC34") is to keep Panose as the classification system, but to drop the
> actual property names from the OS/2 spec and to reference the Panose
> specification to define them. As of today
> (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/os2.htm#pan), the property
> names listed in the OS/2 table description only mention properties that
> are defined in Section 2 of Panose spec for Latin text. Other sections
> (3 - 5) of Panose use the same 10 byte arrays but define slightly
> different set of properties.
> 
> > Even if the original authors of panose did not envision certain
> > combinations, that does not imply that those combinations are
> > useless.
> >
> 
> Right, and the liaison also seem to emphasize it when they refer to a
> specific [international] descriptor of the Panose field that says that
> "Additional specifications are required for PANOSE to classify non-
> Latin character sets".
> 
> I wonder if Suzuki-san (copied on this email) may be able to offer more
> details about this liaison and whether my understanding of the proposal
> is correct.
> 
> Thank you,
> Vladimir
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>