[MPEG-OTSPEC] Updates to specification

[wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com]

Peter Constable wrote:


> I’d prefer to see more thumbs up on anything before adoption.
The problem with that is that it effectively gives a veto to progress to 
large companies.
'If there is good opportunity to object and there are no objections then 
that is fine.
It is like adding a script to Unicode. Those with an interest opine, 
others, who may never use that script but have no wish to oppose others 
doing so and may wish them well in their efforts, say nothing.
If a new script needed positive endorsement from at least some number of 
big companies, the script might never get encoded.
Objecting can be effective. Objections to my localizable sentences 
invention led to discussion of localizable sentences being banned in the 
Unicode mailing list. So progress has been delayed. So the status quo 
over encoding localizable sentences into Unicode is as if it is on the 
lower surface of a cusp catastrophe manifold and it has quite a ceiling 
to breach before it becomes encoded into Unicode. It needs to be 
super-excellent to overcome the objections.
So I am opposed to a process where progress suggested by someone needs 
positive endorsement. If, given the opportunity to object, nobody 
objects, then, in my opinion, that is sufficient for acceptance.
William Overington
  Thursday 20 August 2020




------ Original Message ------
From: "Peter Constable" <pgcon6 at msn.com>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com>; "David 
Singer" <singer at apple.com>
Cc: "mpeg-otspec" <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
Sent: Wednesday, 2020 Aug 19 At 19:22
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] Updates to specification


My remarks were focused on what things look like if we try to move in 
the direction of more formal ISO processes, not the way we have done 
things via the AHG.

I have pointed out in the past and again this morning in another thread 
that a weakness in the current AHG process is that it’s possible for 
things to go into OFF without really  having had a lot of review from 
implementers. Not that there hasn’t been reasonable opportunity for 
review, but more that the engagement is passive: a proposal can be made 
and incorporated unless objections are raised, with silence treated as 
implicit consent.  But I don’t think it can really be considered consent 
if a proposal wasn’t actually reviewed: silence gives no indication up, 
down or sideways. I’d prefer to see more thumbs up on anything before 
adoption.


Peter




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200820/d477b10a/attachment-0001.html>