[mpeg-OTspec] RE: Proposed changes to the OFF specification

[suzuki toshiya]

Dear Michelle,

I (personally) think Panose 2.0 is something like yet-another
Panose restructured from scratch, and it is not so easy to
extend existing Panose 1.0 implementation to support both of
Panose 1.0 & 2.0 seamlessly. I guess Chris Lilley mentioned
Panose 2.0 for the ownership and the license info, and he is
not proposing to use Panose 2.0 in future OpenType, at present.

# I'm interested in whether Chris (and other W3C people) is
# still in the discussion for Panose 2.0 licensing with HP.

Anyway, the decision if Panose 2.0 should be supported in future
OpenType (via OS/2 or any other new table) must require more time
to investigation. It's correct.

But, SC34 does not ask about the extension for Panose 2.0. SC34
just asked for the further clarification of existing Panose in
OpenType spec.

Regards,
suzuki toshiya, SC34 member, Japan



Michelle Perham wrote:
> Sorry for our delay in responding to this proposal. Microsoft would like to delay this proposal so that we can do more investigation. When originally asked, we said that all known implementations follow the current version of the Panose specification. We now believe that some implementations (internal and external to Microsoft) may still follow version 1 of the Panose specification. Version 1 only contained support for Latin Text and Display faces and the Opentype specification was written based on Version 1. If this is the case, we may need to mitigate this problem by updating the version of the OS/2 table and adding a new field to support Panose 2.0.
> 
> Michelle
> 
> From: Levantovsky, Vladimir [mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky at MonotypeImaging.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 12:13 PM
> To: OTspec
> Subject: Proposed changes to the OFF specification
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> It's been a long time since our last activity on this list. The next WG11 meeting is in two weeks, and I would like to bring to your attention the liaison statement from SC34/WG$ submitted to WG11 (see attached) where a proposal is made to make changes to the existing specification and to remove the list of property names from the current description of OS/2 table instead simply referring to the original Panose specification.
> 
> I would like to ask for your input and opinions on this suggested change.
> 
> Thank you,
> Vladimir
> 
>