[MPEG-OTSPEC] Updates to specification

[John Hudson]

On 13082020 8:18 am, Simon Cozens wrote:
>     Thank you so much for the explanation. That makes a lot of sense. 
> It sounds like: this AHG has an open and formalized process for 
> approving changes, as opposed to the somewhat opaque process that 
> happens when a Github issue is submitted; changes are submitted to ISO 
> through this group, so this is the right place for OFF proposals in 
> the first instance; and MS picks up and integrates accepted proposals 
> made on this list anyway (and probably should not be integrating 
> proposals not discussed here). 

Well...

There is no formal agreement between Microsoft as owner of the OpenType 
spec and ISO as maintainer of the OFF spec regarding continued 
synchronisation or even functional compatibility. So while, to date, 
efforts have been made to keep the two specifications in synch — even to 
the extent of Microsoft incorporating the CBDT, sbix, and SVG  colour 
font tables, which were first accepted into OFF,  in addition to their 
own COLR/CPAL format — there is no guarantee that the specifications 
will remain in synch. Microsoft is not obliged to accept changes 
proposed and approved through the ISO process, and ISO is not obliged to 
approve changes that Microsoft make.

Note that Peter’s carefully worded response refers to Microsoft 
‘consulting other platform vendors’ and ‘keeping Apple, their original 
TT partner, in the loop’ — /not/ to making use of the ISO process. To my 
knowledge the only change to the OpenType specification that was 
directly proposed, reviewed, and approved through the ISO process was 
the change to the init, medi, fina, and isol feature descriptions a few 
years ago, and I had already checked with Microsoft that they agreed 
with the changes in principle before I submitted the proposals to the 
OFF AHG. In that case, the ISO process was just a convenient way to do 
the editorial work on what were, after all, changes only to a registry, 
not to part of the core OT specification.

In the absence of any formal agreement to maintain synchronicity and 
compatibility between OT and OFF, I have tended to operate on the basis 
of which process seems stronger in terms of achieving things that will 
be implemented: Microsoft’s ad hoc consultation with platform vendors 
(specifically Apple, Adobe, and Google) and some font developers, or 
ISO/MPEG's AHG process. And, frankly, the former has always seemed 
stronger: if that group of platform vendors agrees to implement 
something, e.g. OT variations, it is probably going to get implemented; 
whereas, adding things to OFF doesn't even guarantee that they’ll make 
it into the OT spec let alone get implemented. Let's be clear: the major 
platform vendors and all the font makers are implementing OpenType; they 
are not implementing OFF except insofar as the latter happens to be 
synchronous with OT. [There are, apparently, companies that /officially/ 
implement the OFF spec, because it provides a way for them to implement 
OT without appearing to be bound to a proprietary technology, but I've 
never heard any developer of either software or fonts actually talk 
about anything other than OpenType.]

So...

OpenType, a proprietary technology owned by Microsoft, is the de facto 
standard. OFF, as an ISO standard with an open and formalised process 
for approving changes, is the de jure standard.

Now...

Although I wasn’t philosophically happy with the lack of transparency 
and openness in the ad hoc OpenType processes, I was practically happy 
to engage in them when they could get things done. The problem is that 
after the OT variations release in 2016, those processes ceased to get 
things done, mostly because Microsoft management took Peter off the OT 
editorship, and didn’t replace him. This has meant that not only the 
processes but the spec itself is in limbo. This was really brought home 
to me after the last face-to-face meetings of the ad hoc working group 
that Behdad hosted at Facebook last summer, when not one of the things 
we had discussed over three days — including things we all agreed were 
critically important, such as a new version of the avar table or similar 
implementation for virtual/meta axes — got done, either in terms of 
specification or implementation.

And...

That’s where we still are. My concern as we consider the scope of a 
proposed text processing and display working group — I think calling it 
a 'shaping working group' is begging the question with regard to scope 
—, is that we can easily come up with a lot of excellent ideas and write 
proposals and other documents, and if we go through the ISO AHG process 
we can even get these things incorporated into the OFF de jure standard, 
/and there will still be no guarantee that any of them will get 
implemented or even get incorporated into the OT de facto standard./


JH


-- 

John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks Ltd    www.tiro.com
Salish Sea, BC        tiro at tiro.com

NOTE: In the interests of productivity, I am currently
dealing with email on only two days per week, usually
Monday and Thursday unless this schedule is disrupted
by travel. If you need to contact me urgently, please
use some other method of communication. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200813/ec59b501/attachment-0001.html>