[mpeg-OTspec] RE: Final (was Tentative) schedule for the AHG meeting

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 12:52 PM William_J_G Overington wrote:
> 
> "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com> wrote:
> 
> > Please see attached for your review and further discussions at the
> AHG meeting two proposals from Microsoft and W3C that have been
> submitted in response to the CFP on color font and MATH layout
> technology.
> 
> > Please see attached one more response to the CFP on color font
> technology submitted by Google.
> 
> Could you possibly explain the procedure for "your review and further
> discussions at the AHG meeting" please?
> 

All interested parties should review the proposals and attend the meeting where the proposals will be presented, the relevant technologies will be demonstrated and the recommendations will be made based on the analysis and technical merits of each proposed solution. These recommendation will further be discussed at the ISO SC29/WG11 meeting where a final conclusion will be reached as to whether the proposals should be accepted and what is the best way forward (i.e. implement them as is, modify and combine certain parts as e.g. already happened with CPAL shared between TTF and SVG glyph descriptions, etc.)

> For example, suppose that I want to suggest that CPAL codes F000
> through to FFFE are reserved for special meaning and not regarded as
> being colours in the same way as are CPAL codes 0000 through to EFFF.
> 
> Also that I want to suggest that one of the CPAL codes within the range
> F000 through to FFFE be defined to mean "totally transparent and sounds
> a beep".
> 
> Is it sufficient to post comments in this mailing list or is it
> preferable to produce a formal document such as a pdf?
> 

Merely proposing something doesn’t mean it is automatically accepted - all the changes in the spec are discussed and agreed by consensus and, in this particular case, you neither provided any substantiation for your proposed reserved CPAL entries nor did you offer any justification as to why e.g. a particular color definitions should mean "totally transparent accompanied by a beep" (fyi, any color can be made transparent, you don’t need to have a special code for that). As a proponent, it is your job to convince members of this group that your proposal has merit, and AFAIK it didn't happen yet.

> What is the time limit for submitting comments please?

Strictly speaking, there is no time limit for comments. The responses to the Call had to be submitted in time for them to be available for review and discussion at the ISO meeting, but the follow-up discussions can also (and most likely will) happen in this AHG after the meeting is over. Even after the proposed technologies are incorporated as part of the standard's working draft, the draft will further undergo certain development stages [defined by the ISO policies and directives] where the approval ballots will be issued offering the opportunity for all National Bodies to review, modify and approve the text of the future standard. (These future ballot comments and approval votes will have to be submitted by certain deadlines but we are not there yet.)

Regards,
Vladimir

> 
> William Overington
> 
> 8 January 2014
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo Groups Links
> 
> 
>