[mpeg-OTspec] Edited version of the OFF 3rd edition WD [1 Attachment]

[Sairus Patel]

Hi Vlad,

> Due to the fact that "OpenType" is a registered trademark, it cannot 
> be used in the ISO document

This means that there should have been two proposals for this item, one for OT and one for OFF, since terminology is an important aspect of this proposal! 

"Font Collection" sounds rather vague. I'd propose "OFF Collection" if one cannot use the word "OpenType" in the OFF spec.

I'd also prefer not to have "TTC" and "TrueType Collection" to continue to be used as the general term in sec. 4.6; "OTC" and "OFF Collection" would be more suitable ("OTC" would be a reference to the file name extension recommendation, and not an acronym for "OFF Collection"). Moving away from TrueType-centric terminology to a more equitable terminology is an important consideration in OT and OFF, IMO.

Thoughts from others are welcome.

Thanks,
Sairus


---


From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:04 PM
To: Sairus Patel; mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] Edited version of the OFF 3rd edition WD [1 Attachment]

  
[Attachment(s) from Levantovsky, Vladimir included below] Hi Sairus, all,

Please take a look at the attached (edited) version of the working draft. Due to the fact that "OpenType" is a registered trademark, it cannot be used in the ISO document (this is the primary reason why ISO spec is called OFF and not OpenType). I made some editorial changes to what Sairus has originally proposed (the changes related to TTC file structure) - in order to keep the spec clear I decided to use a generic "Font Collection" term and added an editorial note explaining the relationship between TTC and OTC. As a result, the existing subclause detailing the structure of TTC remains unchanged.
I edited the "Filenames" section of "Recommendations" as Sairus suggested and also added a new section in the end of the "Recommendations" moving the existing Note from the spec proper to it.

Please review the text and let me know if this is acceptable. Once I have your okay on the recent edits I will submit this updated text to ISO.

Thank you,
Vlad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Sairus Patel
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 1:49 PM
> To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] Edited version of the OFF 3rd edition WD
> 
> Hi Vlad,
> 
> Only some of the changes proposed in the following item:
> 
> > - OTC filename extension
> > (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpeg-OTspec/message/643 with 
> > amended proposal at
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/mpeg-OTspec/message/647)
> 
> were included in your draft below; e.g. change #7 wasn't included in 
> the draft. The phrase "OpenType Collection" doesn't appear to have 
> replaced "TrueType Collection" in the spec.
> 
> Also, the proposal was to have the Filenames section be entirely in 
> the Recommendations page, with a note in the spec proper referring to 
> that section, but your draft has the new wording (including .OTC) in 
> the spec proper, with the Filenames section in the Recommendations 
> page being unchanged.
> 
> Would you please take a look?
> 
> Thanks,
> Sairus
> 
> 
> From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Levantovsky, Vladimir
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:39 PM
> To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [mpeg-OTspec] Edited version of the OFF 3rd edition WD [1 
> Attachment]
> 
> 
> [Attachment(s) from Levantovsky, Vladimir included below] Dear all,
> 
> Please see attached the edited version of the OFF 3rd edition working 
> draft that I will submit to ISO Secretariat. The current version of 
> the draft includes all changes that were proposed and agreed by consensus.
> The submission of the WD doesn't mean that the discussions cannot 
> continue - any new changes can be introduced by writing them up and 
> presenting as new proposals for consideration of the SC29/WG11.
> 
> Thank you,
> Vladimir
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>