[MPEG-OTSPEC] Defining the text shaping working group’s scope

[Dave Crossland]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 2:43 AM Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:01 AM Levantovsky, Vladimir <
> Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Suzuki-San,
>>
>> I am on vacation this week and my internet connection is quite limited,
>> sorry for not responding sooner.
>>
>> The discussion we are currently conducting as part of the AHG activity is
>> exploration of the potential future work item(s), and is open to everyone
>> who wants to participate and contribute.
>>
>
> Are there any measures in place to make sure Microsoft or Adobe do not
> block contributions from other participants,
>

What are some examples of contributions that were blocked in the last 10
years?

I'm aware of vf stuff in the last 2-4 years that hasn't gone anywhere close
to a format spec draft, let alone implementation (like axis registration,
or xvar/xvar/avar2). But that seems to me not because of any intent to
actively block progress, but because anyone who could have worked on it had
other priorities for their time - and many rely on work day time, and had
those other priorities imposed by management.

I'm also aware of what Peter mentioned yesterday, the color fonts debacle
that was the main format activity before VF, yet which is a current concern
due to the proposal from Google, that you were an initial co-author of.

I've heard Microsoft announced COLR/CPAL at their Build event, apparently
without any consultation with anyone else; and meanwhile Adobe and Mozilla
folks had been driving "svg table" work within w3c, apparently without keen
interest from major implementors who have yet to ship support today. I'm
not familiar with how the Apple and Google pixel graphics formats were
developed.

No implementation can stop another from moving ahead (assuming no legal
interference) with a de facto standard. So then the opposite problem has
arisen, where none were blocked and all were "standardized", in terms of
"speculation specification", yet none is widely implemented (and the fact
there are several makes something of a mockery of the word, "standard" ;)

And that's ultimately what "unblocking" has to mean, I think - effectively
coordinating both de jure and de facto progress.

or force their agendas on the working group like they have been doing for
> the past ten+ years?
>

(I think it's important to follow Vlad's lead here and shy away from
calling an activity a "working group" unless it's a formal ISO Working
Group. I believe you meant "ad hoc group" :)

I'm not sure how any major implementors could avoid forcing their agendas
on the format. It is primarily for them, to coordinate.

10 years ago, they were the most major implementors. Perhaps even the only
major ones?

Since then, Apple has made a much more complete implementation, and
harfbuzz has not only also been made complete, but has also become widely
adopted - even by Adobe and Microsoft - and then there's freetype,
fonttools, all-sorts, and more libre implementations.

Also, since then, the color fonts debacle provides a recent - current -
anti-pattern case study for management about the business value (cost) of
not coordinating on font standards activity.

So - "them" has changed, and I would say that having seen that change
already happen, that is what now already prevents anti-patterns of the past
from reoccurring.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200814/b7216423/attachment.html>