[mpeg-OTspec] Ballot comments for the second OFF (3rd ed.) amendment

Tue Aug 23 22:50:40 CEST 2016

Hi Sairus,

Thank you for the comments! Please provide the exact changes you want to make in the text of the example (item 2 of your email) and I will add them to recently submitted ballot comments. We have a very limited time to make this change.

Thank you,
Vlad

From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Sairus Patel sppatel at adobe.com [mpeg-OTspec]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 8:45 PM
To: Levantovsky, Vladimir; Peter Constable; mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] Ballot comments for the second OFF (3rd ed.) amendment

Vlad:

1.
The eagle-eyed folks at Microsoft pointed out a CSS custom variables syntax error in “Example: Specifying color palette variables in glyphs”. That section has 3 style sheets of the form:

:root {
  color0: darkblue;
  color1: #00aab3;
}

Two hyphens should precede each custom variable name, e.g.:

:root {
  --color0: darkblue;
  --color1: #00aab3;
}

This change should be made to the other two style sheets in that example as well. Would you please take care of that?

2.
They also pointed out that:

In “Example: Specifying current text color in glyphs,” you use context-fill to set the color of a gradient stop. We believe this is invalid in SVG 1.1.

The OT-SVG spec says “The following new values for any CSS property that takes an SVG paint value MUST be supported: context-fill…” However, the stop-color<http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/pservers.html#StopColorProperty> attribute is not a paint<http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/painting.html#SpecifyingPaint> value; it is a color<http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/types.html#DataTypeColor> value.

I’ll want to discuss this more with the SVG folks, since it’s a bit odd that gradient stop colors can be affected by color palette entries but not by current text color, but for now, I can modify the example to let only the (solid) dot of the “i” take on the context-fill color, and leave the body of the “i”, with the gradient, unaffected by current text color.

This will be a one-word change in the SVG code in the example, but of course the accompanying graphic will have to be changed.

Let me know when you this we can work this in.

Thanks to the folks at Microsoft for their careful review!

Sairus

From: "mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>" <mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>> on behalf of "'Levantovsky, Vladimir' vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com> [mpeg-OTspec]" <mpeg-OTspec-noreply at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec-noreply at yahoogroups.com>>
Reply-To: Vladimir Levantovsky <vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com>>
Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 at 7:44 AM
To: Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com<mailto:petercon at microsoft.com>>, "mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>" <mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>>
Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] Ballot comments for the second OFF (3rd ed.) amendment

Thank you Peter,
I will take care of this change during the editorial review process before the final text of the amendment is published.

Cheers,
Vlad

From: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com> [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Constable petercon at microsoft.com<mailto:petercon at microsoft.com> [mpeg-OTspec]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 6:33 PM
To: Levantovsky, Vladimir; mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] Ballot comments for the second OFF (3rd ed.) amendment

Editorial comment: On page 7:

“In this example, the PNG is embedded using SVG’s <image> element. The use case for this is bitmap lettering artwork that need to be packaged into an OT-SVG font.”

Change “need” to “needs”.

Peter

From:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com> [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 'Levantovsky, Vladimir' vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com> [mpeg-OTspec]
Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2016 10:00 AM
To: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com<mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com>>; mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] Ballot comments for the second OFF (3rd ed.) amendment

Dear all,

While reviewing the text of the amendment I noticed that the proposed change to update the Unicode reference to version 8 is already outdated – the most recent published version is now Unicode 9.0: http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode9.0.0/

I’d suggest to introduce this change via editorial ballot comment, I don’t believe it would affect anything else in the OFF standard.

Please remember to review the final draft amendment before it’s too late – I would like to submit the ballot comments by the end of next week.

Thank you,
Vladimir

From:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com> [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 'Levantovsky, Vladimir' vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com> [mpeg-OTspec]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 4:00 PM
To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [mpeg-OTspec] Ballot comments for the second OFF (3rd ed.) amendment

All,

As a follow up to my previous email – the document that is now under ballot is identical to the one I sent for your review at the last MPEG meeting in early June (see https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mpeg-OTspec/conversations/messages/1486). Since this is the final ballot for this amendment – the scope of the ballot comments (if we submit any) would be limited to making corrections and clarifications of what is already part of this amendment – no new matter can be introduced at this time.

Please review the document and let me know if there is anything that needs attention. I plan to finalize and submit ballot comments for consideration of the National Body by mid-August so we have about three weeks to work on this document. If anything needs changes – please reply to this email with your comments, if I don’t hear from you by Aug. 15 I will submit the recommendation to approve the document with no comments.

Thank you,
Vladimir

From:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com> [mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of 'Levantovsky, Vladimir' vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at monotype.com> [mpeg-OTspec]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:15 PM
To: mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com<mailto:mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [mpeg-OTspec] Ballot comments for the second OFF (3rd ed.) amendment [1 Attachment]

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

Dear all,

This is just a friendly reminder that the draft text of the second amendment to the ISO/IEC 14496-22:2015 has been finalized at the last MPEG meeting based on the comments submitted by this AHG (see https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mpeg-OTspec/conversations/messages/1483 for details). The updated text of the amendment is currently under open ballot, and the document to review is attached for your convenience. Please review the amendment items and let me know if any further changes or corrections would be desired. If changes or corrections are necessary, we can introduce them via ballot comments (this will be the last opportunity to do so for this amendment).

Thank you,
Vladimir

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20160823/062acab2/attachment.html>