Panose issue status? (Re: [mpeg-OTspec] AHG activity kick-off)

[suzuki toshiya]

Dear Greg and David,

If you got any investigation results on the difference
between http://panose.com/ versus the Panose assumed by
existing implementation, could you post to the list?

In my understanding; during the discussion about Panose
spec clarification in July 2011, you had expressed the
concern that the Panose data structure assumed by the
existing implementations by Microsoft and Adobe might be
different from the spec currently published via
http://panose.com/, so referring the latest official
Panose as the normative part of the standard might
introduce some incompatibility issues between the existing
font processing system versus the standard 'conforming'
fonts. Also I'm interested in hearing the comments by
other experts dealing with different existing implementations
(e.g. Apple).

Panose is used by several dejure or defacto standards
(e.g. CSS, SVG, OOXML, etc), but the implmentation around
OpenType would be the most respected one. If the latest
official Panose at http://panose.com is not appropriate
spec for OpenType implementation to refer normatively,
ISO/IEC 14496-22 is expected to define what should be
referred.

When SC29/WG11 is held in San Jose, SC34/WG4 (OOXML
maintenance WG) is held in Prague, Checz. So as a member
of SC34, I want to know what kind of inputs are prepared
for next SC29/WG11 meeting.

Regards,
suzuki toshiya, Hiroshima University, Japan
member of SC34

Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote (2011/12/22 0:59):
> Dear AHG members,
> 
> The next WG11 )MPEG) meeting will take place in early February (Feb. 6-10, 2-12) in San Jose, CA. The meeting notice can be found at:
> http://registrationassistant.com/meetingplanit/2012ISO/default.asp
> 
> The AHG mandate for this period includes the following items:
> 
> 1.       To study the text of the amendment ISO/IEC 14496-22/DAM2 "Open Font Format, Amendment 2: Additional script and language tags"
> 
> 2.       To study the text of the ISO/IEC 14496-28/DIS "Composite font representation"
> 
> (Both 14496-22 and 14496-28 documents are currently under open ballots that will be closed in the end of January.)
> 
> 
> 3.       To study the impact of the proposed changes to OS/2 'Panose' field on the existing implementations and to recommend a way the proposed changes can be implemented
> 
> As you remember, a proposal has been made to extend Panose settings to improve classification for non-Latin scripts. I would like to us to continue the discussion and come up with the recommendations for WG11 to proceed.
> 
> 
> 4.       To conduct exploration activities on integrating SVG as new glyph description format in OFF in collaboration with the W3C
> 
> 5.       To collect and evaluate the proposed changes and improvements to the OFF standard and produce a report with recommended work items for WG11
> 
> A new proposal to extend OFF/OpenType capabilities using SVG glyph descriptions to support multi-colored glyphs and animations had been made earlier this year and the discussions are now conducted in W3C Community group http://www.w3.org/community/svgopentype/. I would like to invite all interested parties to contribute to this discussion.
> 
> Over the last few months, a number of the proposed changes were submitted to the AHG email list with the intent to improve the clarity of the spec and to correct some wording and minor mistakes in the text of the standard. I would like us to finalize the list of changes we want to see implemented in the spec and produce a recommendation to MPEG on how to proceed. Since the second edition of the OFF standard was published (which is identical to OpenType ver. 1.6), we already had two amendments (including the current one) and one corrigendum. According to the ISO process document, the next set of changes would need to be implemented as a new edition of the standard, which makes sense considering not only the changes and clarifications in the current text but also a new addition of the SVG functionality in the future standard (subject to reaching a consensus among all group members). Therefore, I would like to suggest that we should plan our work as an exploration activity fo
r SVG glyphs and to collect and finalize the list of all changes that need to be implemented in the next edition of the standard.
> 
> Thank you and happy holidays!
> Vladimir
> 
>