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

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 5:45 AM Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>
wrote:

> 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 writing down a dozen or more that I can recall off the top of my head;
mostly spearheaded by Peter. I'll get that out this week; definitely before
next meeting.



> 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.
>

I'll make sure to write that down as well.  Keeps expanding...



> 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 disagree.  The "ad hoc group" is a formal part of how OFF is supposed to
work. The "ad hoc" part refers to its membership, which is separate from
ISO's country-level representation.  We can differentiate "working group"
vs "Working Group".

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

I don't understand. Apple is good model citizen here. They do what they
want. They don't try to limit what others do. They don't claim to be a fair
participant.


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

Ten years ago Apple was a major implementation. Even if not the most
complete.  Plus, everyone agrees script specs are not part of OFF, so by
that definition Apple was a very complete implementation of OFF ten years
ago.



> 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.
>

It doesn't. As I will argue in my write-up, Peter *personally* has been
influential in all the misdeeds performed under MS's belt.  I don't believe
MS has had an agenda. Peter has an agenda, even though quite possibly an
unconscious one. That's why I question his objectivity and fairness.

b
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200814/f034815b/attachment.html>