[OpenType] OpenType spec: put it on GitHub?

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

I agree with Ken but also would like to add a bit more color to the discussion.

I think that using GitHub as a place where new technologies are developed and integrated with the existing spec is perfectly fine, and hosting a working draft copy on GitHub to enable this would be inevitable part of the development process. However, this cannot be seen as a substitute for the official spec and the new features / technology components [once finalized] would have to be introduced into the ISO OFF text via the existing process that involves proposal submission / acceptance and editorial work / final ballot approval. The last two steps of the process will be repeated at least two times before the standard is published.

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: Thursday, November 10, 2016 9:39 PM
To: opentype-list at indx.co.uk; mpeg-OTspec at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [mpeg-OTspec] Re: [OpenType] OpenType spec: put it on GitHub?

Laurence,

I am not sure whether you have any experience working on ISO standards, but setting up the official specification on GitHub is likely to be a non-starter as long as there is synchronization with an ISO standard. I completely agree that using GitHub to track issues is a good idea, and can work, but I don't think that hosting the specification on GitHub is going to work.

Best...

-- Ken

> On Nov 10, 2016, at 6:31 PM, Laurence Penney <lorp at lorp.org> wrote:
> 
> Message from OpenType list:
> 
> 
> Hi Sairus,
> 
> I am indeed suggesting that the OpenType spec itself is published on GitHub.
> 
> I am not sure I like the notion of the “'live' cutting-edge text”. A spec should have longish stable periods, where the only changes are typos. A really good spec never changes ;)
> 
> Github experts: is there a method of declaring an issue as resolved in favour of a certain change, and then later declaring the same issue implemented in the published spec?
> 
> - L
> 
>> On 10 Nov 2016, at 23:13, Sairus Patel <sppatel at adobe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Message from OpenType list:
>> 
>> 
>> Laurence and other +1’ers,
>> 
>> Are you suggesting the OpenType spec itself – which is owned by Microsoft – be published on GitHub, as opposed to on microsoft.com? (Or in both places?)
>> 
>> Or just that GitHub be used as an issue tracker only?
>> 
>> Also, we’ll need to think about OFF, which has its own issue-tracking and -resolving mechanism, regulated by ISO.
>> 
>> Thanks for bringing this up; it is worthy indeed of some good discussion.
>> 
>> Sairus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List archive: http://www.indx.co.uk/biglistarchive/
> List settings: http://www.indx.co.uk/biglistarchive/?mode=usersettings
> 
> subscribe: opentype-subscribe at indx.co.uk
> unsubscribe: opentype-unsubscribe at indx.co.uk
> messages: opentype-list at indx.co.uk
> 
> 



------------------------------------
Posted by: Ken Lunde <lunde at adobe.com>
------------------------------------


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

Yahoo Groups Links