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

[Behdad Esfahbod]

Even this list is called "mpeg-otspec", where "otspec" stands for "OpenType
Specification". Yet when I talk about what has happened in OpenType
development I'm told by chair here that none of that is relevant to the OFF.

It's that discrepancy that I've been trying to shine light on.

behdad
http://behdad.org/


On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:38 PM MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>
wrote:

> > 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.
>
> SC 29/ WG 11 N 19386 appears to be an official
> document for establishing this AHG.  It mentions
> this ML as a reflector but does not mention any
> other MLs or GitHub repositories.  I thus think
> that they (except this ML) are irrelevant to this
> AHG.
>
> I would not be this strict usually.  But there appear
> to be several MLs and GitHub repositories about
> font formats.  Even experts appear to be confused:
> which is for OFF and which is for a spec of a
> private company and which is an independent
> attempt?
>
> Don't take me wrong.  I am not saying ISO committees
> cannot use GitHub.  My committee (SC34/WG4)
> does.  I'm just saying that I have not found any
> evidence in the SC29 document archive to believe
> that this AHG officially uses a GitHub repository.
> National bodies are not notified.
>
> Regards,
> Makoto
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201002/1ff93a50/attachment.html>