[mpeg-OTspec] AHG kick-off and mandates [1 Attachment]

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

Red-line version means that all edits were made with “track changes” on, so one can easily see the text that was added compared with the previous version of the working draft . The new text should appear underscored (not crossed out) and clearly marked as “inserted” when you hover your mouse pointer over it, if this is not the case there may be an issue with the version of WordPad you’re using (and I am not sure if WordPad can handle MS Word markup properly). Has anyone else tried to open the document and see if the changes and the markup are there?

If one prefers to use a PDF version instead – feel free to convert the document I sent you to PDF format yourself. FWIW, MS Word does allow you to zoom in and enlarge text if you wish; I am using ISO MS Word template because as a project editor I must follow ISO guidelines and directives, and I cannot [and don’t want to] be bothered to maintain the multiple versions of the same document in multiple different formats – one’s personal preferences can be satisfied with one’s personal effort.

Regards,
Vladimir


From: William_J_G Overington [mailto:wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:37 AM
To: Levantovsky, Vladimir; OTspec <mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] AHG kick-off and mandates [1 Attachment]

Thank you for posting.

I am new to this process, so seek clarification please.

In relation to "red-line", what does this mean in this context please?

My previous knowledge of the use of the term red line could be shown by example in a sentence such as the following example.

I am open to some negotiation as to which vegetables are served at the dinner but my red line is that one of them should be carrots.

That is, the red line expresses the item or items upon which negotiation will not lead to any change.

Yet the context here seems to have some meaning different from that meaning.

I unzipped the file and opened the .doc file in WordPad.

I searched for COLR and almost every entry was crossed out in blue.

Is that because it is crossed out as such or because it is a draft and the crossed out bits are what we are considering?

Is it possible to circulate a pdf version please so that people can zoom-in?

William Overington

26 February 2014

________________________________
From: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com>>
To: "OTspec <mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>>" <mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 21:30
Subject: [mpeg-OTspec] AHG kick-off and mandates [1 Attachment]


[Attachment(s)<https://uk-mg-bt.mail.yahoo.com/neo/#TopText> from Levantovsky, Vladimir included below]
Dear AHG members,

As you know, at the last MPEG meeting we received three responses for the previously published CFP for color fonts and math layout technology. As the results, the resolution accepted at the meeting was to harmonize all three proposals and integrate them in the current working draft of 3rd edition of the ISO/IEC 14496-22 “Open Font Format”. The revised, red-line version of the working draft is attached to this email for your review and comments.

One of the mandates the AHG has until the next MPEG meeting is to study the text of the working draft and prepare the recommendations (and input contributions, if necessary) to be reviewed at the next meeting in early April. The original plan was to finalize the working draft and promote it to the next Committee Draft stage – I believe this can be accomplished if we make sure that all comments and changes are discussed and submitted by this AHG for consideration at the next meeting. One possible change could be e.g. the integration of the proposed new color bitmap tables with the existing embedded bitmap tables; however, this requires further feasibility studies to make sure that this change (if it were to be adopted) would not  affect any existing implementations.

We also have the mandates to review and study the draft amendment of the ISO/IEC 14496-18 “Font compression and streaming” and the draft corrigendum of ISO/IEC 14496-28 “Composite Font Representation” – both documents have been discussed on the list a while ago, and both are now under ballots.

Looking forward to your comments on the attached red-line text of the WD. A special request to all who submitted the proposals in response to the CFP – please review the changes for accuracy and report to this list anything that you may have found that needs to be revised.

Thank you very much,
Vladimir



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20140226/f91d4ce2/attachment.html>