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

Fri Jul 22 02:10:51 CEST 2011

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Hitchcock 
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 4:59 PM
To: suzuki toshiya
Cc: Michelle Perham; Chris Lilley; Levantovsky, Vladimir; OTspec; Simon Daniels
Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] RE: Proposed changes to the OFF specification

<Michelle, please forward as necessary>

> From: suzuki toshiya
>
> Thank you for proposal to use different names for Panose in TT/OT 
> spec, Panose that owned by HP and hosted by MonoType, and Panose 2.0 
> that a white paper is hosted by W3C. It is good idea. But, your 
> numbering 1.0,
> 1.5 and 2.0 makes me suppose as if HP updated Panose spec after 
> Microsoft designed OS/2 table (and the Panose before it was same with 
> the Panose in TT/OT spec).

That is correct, HP (actually ElseWare) updated the specification after Microsoft designed the OS/2 table. That version I refer to as PANOSE 1.5. The Version of PANOSE in the TT/OT specification is what I labeled PANOSE 1.0.

> # In addition, old TrueType spec by Microsoft (revision 1.66) had a # 
> reference "Panose v2.0 Numerical Evaluation".

The reference in the 1.66 TrueType specification was short term--and it was _only_ for the variable specifications. This did not mean that PANOSE 2.0 was supported by TrueType.

> I want to use "TrueType Panose" for Panose in TT/OT spec. But if your 
> version numbering is the convetions widely accepted by Microsoft 
> experts, I will follow it in this discussion.

I made up these numbering conventions today, so they are not widely accepted by Microsoft, but they were intended to illustrate the historical changes to PANOSE. At Microsoft we just refer to PANOSE which both from a Win32 and TrueType/OpenType point of view refers to what I earlier labeled PANOSE 1.0.

> If so, again, OT spec should be updated to clarify the difference 
> between 1.0 and 1.5, and which Panose is recommended for OT users.

I believe that with a close reading of the current OpenType specification the difference is clear (not with my arbitrary version numbers, but with the explicit field names in the specification and the external reference to only help on assignment of the field values. That said, additional clarification to the specification is always useful, especially if we've found that there has been confusion. 

I think there is value offered in the PANOSE 1.5 and possibly the PANOSE 2.0, but we have to be quite careful in how we update the OS/2 specification.

GregH

-----Original Message-----
From: suzuki toshiya [mailto:mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 4:33 PM
To: Greg Hitchcock
Cc: Michelle Perham; Chris Lilley; Levantovsky, Vladimir; OTspec; Simon Daniels
Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] RE: Proposed changes to the OFF specification

Hi,

Thank you for proposal to use different names for Panose in TT/OT spec, Panose that owned by HP and hosted by MonoType, and Panose 2.0 that a white paper is hosted by W3C. It is good idea. But, your numbering 1.0,
1.5 and 2.0 makes me suppose as if HP updated Panose spec after Microsoft designed OS/2 table (and the Panose before it was same with the Panose in TT/OT spec).

Is it my misunderstanding and the numbering is just for this discussion and it does not mean the historical development? If so (it does not mean historical development), I'm afraid using Panose 1.0 for TT/OT spec is not good idea, because; current OT spec does not mention the version of Panose, Panose spec hosted by MonoType does not mention the version of it, but Panose 2.0 spec calls previous Panose owned by HP as "Panose 1.0".

# In addition, old TrueType spec by Microsoft (revision 1.66) had a # reference "Panose v2.0 Numerical Evaluation".

I want to use "TrueType Panose" for Panose in TT/OT spec. But if your version numbering is the convetions widely accepted by Microsoft experts, I will follow it in this discussion.

--

Besides of naming conventions, the comment Microsoft products were designed for Panose 1.0 and not for 1.5 (in your terminology) sounds incompatible with what I've ever heard before from Microsoft experts.
I will check my mailbox.

If so, again, OT spec should be updated to clarify the difference between
1.0 and 1.5, and which Panose is recommended for OT users.

Regards,
suzuki toshiya, SC34 member, Japan

Michelle Perham wrote:
> Greg Hitchcock, of Microsoft, asked me to forward this response to the group:
> 
> 
> 
> We need some clarification of terms here. I'm going to arbitrarily choose some version numbers to reference the PANOSE data.
> 
> 
> 
> PANOSE 1.0 is the version of PANOSE used by TrueType and OpenType. The fields are defined here http://www.microsoft.com/Typography/otspec/os2.htm#pan and (this is important) the description of the contents of the fields are defined here: http://www.microsoft.com/Typography/otspec/os2ver1.htm#pan.
> 
> 
> 
> PANOSE 1.5 is not part of the TrueType or OpenType specification and 
> is defined here:
> http://www.monotypeimaging.com/ProductsServices/pan1.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> PANOSE 2.0 is not part of the TrueType or OpenType specification and 
> is (possibly) defined here:
> http://www.w3.org/Fonts/Panose/pan2.html#DataStructures
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that PANOSE 2.0 (using my definitions) is not part of this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> PANOSE 1.0 and PANOSE 1.5 are not fully compatible with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> The OpenType specification contains a reference to the PANOSE 1.5 
> specification only in order to provide the information for a font 
> developer to fill in the fields for PANOSE 1.0, not to add the PANOSE
> 1.5 field definitions. Note that the OpenType specification says: "The 
> specification for _assigning_ PANOSE values can be found here 
> [http://www.monotypeimaging.com/ProductsServices/pan1.aspx]. "
> [emphasis added] (I'm using the definition of assign as: COMPUT to 
> designate a value for a computer memory location corresponding to a 
> named variable.) The pointer was _not_ added to redefine the fields as 
> in the PANOSE 1.5 specification, but rather as an online replacement 
> for the reference in the OpenType specification: "The Panose values 
> are fully described in the Panose "greybook" reference, currently 
> owned by Monotype Imaging." The "greybook" referenced in the OpenType 
> specification is: _PANOSE Classification Guide: Numeric specifications 
> for the classification of fonts in the P
ANOSE Typeface Matching System._ Version 1.2, September 23, 1992, ElseWare Corporation, Seattle, WA.
> 
> 
> 
> PANOSE 1.5 requires that the Family Kind field be used as a key to interpret the meaning of the additional fields while PANOSE 1.0 does not have this requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> PANOSE 1.5 attempts to closely match the fields and definitions of PANOSE 1.0, but it does not match exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> Microsoft products (Operating Systems, Tools, &c.) were all designed with PANOSE 1.0 in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Removing the field definitions from the OS/2 table and instead referencing the specification at http://www.monotypeimaging.com/ProductsServices/pan1.aspx explicitly changes the PANOSE from PANOSE 1.0 to PANOSE 1.5.
> 
> 
> 
> Because Microsoft products were designed for PANOSE 1.0 and PANOSE 1.5 is not fully compatible with PANOSE 1.0, this change can break Microsoft products.
> 
> 
> 
> If PANOSE 1.5 support is desired, it would require adding a new field to the OS/2 table with the appropriate version change or adding a separate PANOSE table.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Chris Lilley
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 5:33 AM
> To: suzuki toshiya
> Cc: Michelle Perham; Levantovsky, Vladimir; OTspec; Simon Daniels; 
> Greg Hitchcock
> Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] RE: Proposed changes to the OFF 
> specification
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, July 21, 2011, 10:37:59 AM, suzuki wrote:
> 
> st> Dear Michelle,
> 
> st> I (personally) think Panose 2.0 is something like yet-another 
> st> Panose restructured from scratch, and it is not so easy to extend 
> st> existing Panose 1.0 implementation to support both of Panose 1.0 &
> st> 2.0 seamlessly.
> 
> I agree. Also, its not clear how complete the Panose 2 work is.
> 
> st> I guess Chris Lilley mentioned
> st> Panose 2.0 for the ownership and the license info, and he is not 
> st> proposing to use Panose 2.0 in future OpenType, at present.
> 
> Yes, exactly.
> 
> --
> Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics 
> Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, 
> CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
> 
> 