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

[Behdad Esfahbod]

[image: image.png]

behdad
http://behdad.org/


On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 7:03 PM Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, August 15, 2020 11:12 AM Liang Hai wrote:
>
> Part of the reason why I’m not keen on organizing this collective effort
> under ISO’s management (be it a WG, Ad Hoc Group, or what), is that ISO
> and/or JTC1’s publication process is not suitable for the documents we’re
> thinking. All we need is an easy to navigate modern website with all the
> vital information we want to maintain, but I doubt ISO/IEC ITTF will grant
> us that. To be honest, it’s a pain to read those procedural documents in
> JTC1’s official format—it’s just gonna discourage potential participants
> for no good reason.
>
> This group have for years united many people who genuinely care about font
> technology and text layout / shaping, but it also has open doors policy to
> new members and new ideas! This is why we decided to start exploration
> activities here, to determine if the scope of text layout and shaping [and
> the needs we want to see covered] are suitable for continued development as
> part of ISO OFF activity, or if we can find a better venue for it. I for
> one agree with Liang that there are certain areas that can be best served
> by “living documents”, those that are likely to address topics that aren’t
> normative by nature.
>
>
>
> Unicode Standard is a good example – some of its parts needed to be made
> normative and are standardized by ISO 10646, others live as technical
> reports and annexes that can be updated and revised fairly quickly, when
> the needs arise. I agree that text layout / shaping implementations may be
> best served by a collection of shared “knowledge base” and “best practices”
> documented in a way that makes them stable, unencumbered by IPR, readily
> accessible, and published by a reliable source, but at the same time those
> that can be easily updated as the “knowledge base” extends and “best
> practices” recommendation change.
>
>
>
> I guess if there is one favor I’d like to ask everyone, it would be that
> we should put aside any preconceived notion of what we originally thought
> could be a good venue, and postpone this decision until we have discussed
> and agreed on the text shaping scope and requirements. [Specific need for
> creating these specification as “living documents” can easily become one of
> those requirements, if we reach a consensus on it.]
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Vlad
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpeg-otspec mailing list
> mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at
> https://lists.aau.at/mailman/listinfo/mpeg-otspec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200815/f58a0310/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3066210 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200815/f58a0310/attachment-0001.png>