[mpeg-OTspec] Draft AHG report

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

Hello Bob, all,

The reason I included the recommendation to postpone the promotion of the working draft is two-fold:

-          the WD combines the major changes that were made in the past via amendments to the 2nd edition text, and new, relatively innocuous additions and clarifications (and none of them would be considered time-critical) – the delay in the 3rd edition publication (as it exists today) isn’t going to be a limiting factor for implementers and early adopters.

-          All major changes made in the past have already been published as official amendments so, again, delaying the publication of the combined text isn’t strictly a concern at this point.

However, I agree with you that the addition of the color font technology is a major undertaking that would be a worthy and ambitious cause for 3rd edition of the standard to become a significant milestone. I’d rather wait and go through the official process of collecting and evaluating various proposals and making tough decisions along the way than having two projects being done in parallel  - going through all the official steps ratifying 3rd edition text and, at the same time, working on the amendment to include color font technology. It seems that it would be much more productive for us as a group and for industry as a whole to combine these efforts.

Would you agree?

Thank you,
Vlad


From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Hallissy
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 5:42 PM
Cc: OTspec (mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com)
Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] Draft AHG report




On 2013-07-24 at 15:35 Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
Please see attached the draft of the AHG report, which I am going to present next week at the WG11 (MPEG) meeting. Your comments are highly appreciated, silence will be considered as approval of the draft (to be finalized by the end of day tomorrow, July 25).

Vladimir's draft AHG report says:

AHG recommends to postpone the promotion of the WD to the Committee Draft stage until the Call for Proposals for color font technology is issued and the responses are evaluated.

If the current OpenType list discussion is any indicator, I would think the color font discussion could go on for quite a while before coming to consensus, and I don't like the idea of rushing it through.

Thus I wonder if it wouldn't be better to recommend just the opposite, namely that the current WD get promoted to Committee Draft as it is and let the color font CFP and discussion continue as long as needed to reach consensus.

But I admit to being relatively ignorant of the processes involved.

Bob




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20130725/46399481/attachment.html>