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

Levantovsky, Vladimir vladimir.levantovsky at monotypeimaging.com
Thu Jul 21 14:01:41 CEST 2011

I also would like to note that adding a new field in the OS/2 table (or any other table for that matter) would have a much more profound effect on all existing implementations and font development tools. Until the impact of such change is fully understood, modifying the spec seems risky and should probably be postponed until a broader discussion takes place. 

There is still a chance that a simple change in the description of existing OS/2 'panose' field would satisfy the needs of the SC34 and the OOXML document format, but, again, we should first make sure that none of the existing implementation are directly affected by it. As it stands right now, the 'panose' field of OS/2 table implements only a subset of the Panose specification. Changing this description to reference the original Panose spec would effectively mean removing any restrictions on the Panose values that can be encoded in the OS/2 table. Some implementations that are conformant to genuine Panose spec may be fine with, while there may still be others that only implement a subset of Panose. It's feasible that such implementations can be easily updated to full Panose spec, but we do need to reach a consensus and make sure that we do not inadvertently introduce a breaking change in the OFF/OT spec.

Thank you,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of suzuki toshiya
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 4:38 AM
> To: Michelle Perham
> Cc: Levantovsky, Vladimir; OTspec; Simon Daniels; Greg Hitchcock;
> chris at w3.org
> Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] RE: Proposed changes to the OFF
> specification
> 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
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links

More information about the mpeg-otspec mailing list