[MPEG-OTSPEC] Updates to specification

[Peter Constable]

But, “progress” isn’t useful if it turns out to be something that nobody will ever care to implement or, worse, isn’t even technically feasible to implement, such as something that causes a spec to contradict itself.

As for your script encoding example, the fact is that no new script gets encoded into Unicode unless there _is_ positive endorsement from a majority of voting members (mostly big companies) of the Unicode Consortium. But since they created Unicode to be a universal encoding, not of the big companies every block a script encoding proposal provided it is technically sound and there is evidence that the script is used within some independent user community. I can’t think of any occasion in the past 20 years when a well-formed proposal to a new script wasn’t added to Unicode without positive endorsement from _all_ of the participating big companies.


Peter


From: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at> On Behalf Of wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 7:49 AM
To: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] Updates to specification

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<mailto:pgcon6 at msn.com>>
To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com<mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com>>; "David Singer" <singer at apple.com<mailto:singer at apple.com>>
Cc: "mpeg-otspec" <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at<mailto: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/20200820/7e4f6cd8/attachment.html>