[MPEG-OTSPEC] Call for Consensus RE: proposal: COLR extension

Levantovsky, Vladimir Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com
Fri Oct 2 03:17:14 CEST 2020

Dear AHG members,

With my AHG chair hat on, I’d like to clarify few things:

1)      The call for consensus that I issued earlier today did NOT ask for members’ approval of the technical content of the proposal (I thought I made it very clear in my email, but, apparently, it was not clear at all). The call was issues on whether we, as a group, have a consensus to make a recommendation to consider the proposed extensions to COLR table as a basis for a new work item / amendment.
The objection to making such recommendation has been duly noted!

2)      Members of this AHG who are also members of the ISO Working Group (SC29/WG3 in this particular case) do not need anyone’s permission (and certainly do not need this AHG permission) to submit a proposal for WG consideration. Whether a proposal a member wants to submit has been developed in this AHG or not has no relevance on the submission process itself.

3)      Submission of a proposal to the WG does not imply any guarantees that the proposal will be accepted. The final decision on whether a proposal should be accepted and acted upon [or not] is totally up to the WG to decide – it is the WG, not the AHG, that has primary responsibility for the OFF spec. The WG may, however, establish the AHG with the mandate to review submissions and make further determinations.

4)      Proposals may be submitted as a result of private collaboration between various parties (individual members, companies, etc.). However, the private collaboration between different members is not considered to be part of the AHG activities.

Finally, I would like to remind us all that this AHG is not a substitute for the WG – the AHG is established by the WG with the specific set of mandates that govern our activities. I would like to encourage all interested parties to become active participants of the WG work by joining SC29/WG3 through their National Bodies.

Thank you,

From: Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 2:47 PM
To: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com>
Cc: Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com>; MPEG OT Spec list (mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at) <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] Call for Consensus RE: proposal: COLR extension

I object to the COLRv1 proposal made by Peter, because I realized that it does NOT encode what was decided technically in the github repo it was developed.

Moving forward, I'm also going to object to ANY proposal that was NOT developed in the open on this mailing list. Because as was made very clear to me, no place other than this list is considered part of the ISO process and as such is NOT subject to any form of process or regulations for decision-making.


On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 12:37 PM Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com<mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com>> wrote:
Dear AHG members,

The proposal for extension of COLR table (introducing the new version1), developed as a collaborative effort of multiple members of this group, was presented this week and has been discussed in the GitHub repo (https://github.com/MPEGGroup/OpenFontFormat/issues/20<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/kMAQCgJGKnTlYPvLCoysnG>).

This email is a call for consensus to introduce this proposal to the SC29/WG3 and to recommend that this proposal, along with the some additional changes for font variations common table formats be considered by the WG as the basis for a new amendment to OFF standard (ISO/IEC 14496-22/AMD2).

To make sure that there is no confusion on how this work is going to proceed (if adopted) and what this call for consensus is seeking to achieve, please note that:

-          If our proposal and recommendations to start a new amendment are adopted, the WG will prepare and publish a new working draft of the future amendment. I will ask for this new working draft be made public so that the content of the changes and the technical details can be once again reviewed by the AHG, and we will be able to introduce new changes and corrections, if necessary.

-          This call for consensus is _not_ seeking for you to state your support for the proposed technical changes. I am asking for a _consensus to issue AHG recommendation_ that the new amendment work should be initiated based on these initial proposals. This recommendation (if the consensus is reached) will be recorded as part of the AHG report to the WG, which I prepare and present on this list for your final review and approval.

I’d like to ask you to voice your _objections_ (if any, stating your reasons for objection) to this call for a consensus recommendation to open a new work item. (If you want to voice your support for this new amendment, this is fine too, but not required for the purpose of this call.)

If I do not hear any objections by end of day Monday, Oct. 5th, I will prepare and submit the proposed technical changes as input contributions on behalf of AHG, and will prepare and share with you the AHG report summarizing the work conducted in this AHG and our recommendations to the WG.

Thank you,

From: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at<mailto:mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at>> On Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 5:22 PM
To: MPEG OT Spec list (mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at<mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>) <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at<mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>>
Subject: [MPEG-OTSPEC] proposal: COLR extension

I’ve created an issue in the repo for discussion: Proposal: extension to COLR table (COLR v1)<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/kMAQCgJGKnTlYPvLCoysnG>.

Google has prepared a proposal<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/yHQyCjRkM0ujylz7S5hL6S> to extend the COLR table with significantly enhanced capabilities. This followed from initial discussion at a meeting in 2019 that included people from various companies, with a general consensus to proceed. I was commissioned by Google to adapt that into proposed revisions to the OpenType spec and to OFF.

Attached are preliminary drafts related to this:

  *   revisions to the COLR section—the bulk of the changes
  *   revisions to the Variations Common Table Formats section
  *   revisions to the CPAL section

Two variants for each are attached: one showing changes from OpenType 1.8.3, which would be approximately the same as changes from OFF:2019 + Amd1; and one showing the net result, with line numbering for easy reference.

Google and I are proposing that this be the basis for a proposed new edition of OFF.

Note: There is not a new edition in ISO's balloting process yet. That means that the technical content is not yet final, wrt ISO process. Assuming work on a new edition were approved at the next WG3 and SC29 meetings, technical balloting on the new edition would go well into 2021.

The draft for the proposed COLR table revisions is not yet complete, but there's enough in place that should allow a technical reader to get a pretty good understanding of proposed new structures and how they work. Also, the specifics on how the color gradation is calculated for a radial gradient have yet to be added, but the description of the structure used for it should, I think, give a clear idea of what the capabilities are. Some visual examples are forthcoming that will provide greater clarity.

The Google proposal was prepared by Behdad Esfahbod, Dominik Röttsches, and Rod Sheeter, with input and review feedback from several others including: Dave Crossland, Laurence Penney, Adam Twardoch, Cosimo Lupo, Rossen, Atanassov, Roel Nieskens, "Pomax", "bungeman", and myself. (Apologies if I missed anyone.)

mpeg-otspec mailing list
mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at<mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20201002/ae8a08b6/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the mpeg-otspec mailing list