[mpeg-OTspec] Draft amendment of ISO/IEC 14496-22 OFF (3rd edition)

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

Dear all,

Please see attached the updated version of the draft amendment proposal. I believe this one is complete and includes all proposed changes that we agreed to by consensus (either as a result of discussions or if no objections were raised on a submitted proposal). Please review and let me know if I missed anything.

Thank you,
Vladimir


-----Original Message-----
From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 'Levantovsky, Vladimir' vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com [mpeg-OTspec]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:06 AM
To: Ken Lunde; mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com; opentype-list at indx.co.uk
Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] Draft amendment of ISO/IEC 14496-22 OFF (3rd edition)

Thank you Ken,
I agree that we would be in a better position if we don't make any changes that might be short-lived, and instead re-think the use of the 'name' table and font collections in general to make sure that we have a future-proof solution, as John and Rob suggested. The draft I prepared earlier hasn't been modified and at this point it contains only the changes we agreed on. 

All, if there is anything else you would like to see corrected or updated in the OFF spec, please send your comments and proposed spec changes to the list. The draft proposal needs to be finalized and submitted to WG11 no later than June 15, we still have a window of opportunity to discuss and include new changes, if desired.

Thank you,
Vladimir



-----Original Message-----
From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Lunde lunde at adobe.com [mpeg-OTspec]
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 8:33 AM
To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com; opentype-list at indx.co.uk
Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] Draft amendment of ISO/IEC 14496-22 OFF (3rd edition)

Vladimir,

Given that both Sairus and Behdad have proposed that we do not restrict what tables can be shared in a Font Collection, and given what John also wrote, I hereby retract my recommendation to restrict the sharing of the 'name' table.

Regards...

-- Ken

> On Jun 3, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Sairus Patel sppatel at adobe.com [mpeg-OTspec] <mpeg-OTspec-noreply at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> In our discussions about table-sharing within a Font Collection, I should note that it may not be useful to prohibit the 'name' table from being shared. 
> 
> For a Font Collection to be installed on the desktop, certainly the components would need to have different names. But what of a Font Collection that's embedded in a document? Such a document format may have only a component font index within a collection to identify a particular font, and thus there would be no need to have a 'name' table in the embedded collection at all - or perhaps only a single shared 'name' table containing, say, just a copyright string.
> 
> I know that the OFF/OT spec's "requirements" for tables etc are desktop-specific & we've talked in the past about having different sets of profiles for requirements (desktop, embedded, etc). That hasn't happened, but I'd say let's not have explicit restrictions on what can be shared in a collection or not. Let the restrictions rather fall out of how tables are constructed.
> 
> Sairus
> 
> 
> 



------------------------------------

------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links





------------------------------------
Posted by: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com>
------------------------------------


------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/x-ygp-stripped
Size: 368 bytes
Desc: m36397-ProposedAmendmentItems_OFF.doc
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20150612/fb67b531/attachment.bin>