[MPEG-OTSPEC] Removal of the CFF and CF2 from OFF standard (was: Proposal to make OFF complete)

[Behdad Esfahbod]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 4:10 PM Levantovsky, Vladimir <
Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 7, 2020 5:52 PM Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>
> Also, procedurally, please help me understand. I thought you vote with
> your SC29/WG3 member representative hat on at the WG3 meeting, NOT here on
> the AHG.
>
>
>
> Correction: as a SC29/WG3 member who is also a member of this AHG
>
>
>
> So I expect the proposal to be rolled up to WG3, and you can then vote on
> it there.
>
>
>
> Nothing is ever rolled up, unless we have a consensus within this AHG to
> recommend something to be considered by the WG. The WG members can choose
> to submit their input directly to the WG for consideration.
>

What's the consensus protocol?

I reviewed the long thread. So far it seems like as soon as someone objects
there is no consensus. However, there's no guidelines for how to resolve
such objections.

Where can I read about the consensus and other protocols of the AHG?


>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:50 PM Behdad Esfahbod <behdad at behdad.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 3:35 PM Levantovsky, Vladimir <
> Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 12:40 AM Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>
> Moreover, I suggest CFF and CFF2 be removed from OFF. The
> claim-to-superiority of CFF format is: 1. better hinting, and 2. better
> compression. Re better-hinting, the interpretation of CFF hints is NOT
> specified anywhere. Adobe's code in FreeType is what we have. Re better
> compression, the existence of CFF in OpenType / OFF is partly why adding
> quadratic beziers to glyf table has continually not happened.
>
>
>
> In reality, CFF only serves Adobe, who sells their rasterizer to MS /
> Apple platforms and serves only Adobe. Another example of Adobe abusing the
> "open" ideology / terminology is the Noto CJK / Adobe-equivalent. It's NOT
> open-source by any means. The sources are not available. That's something
> that I pointed out directly to Ken Lunde at one of his Unicode Conference
> presentations. Adobe is clearly aware of it. And I couldn't fix when I was
> at Google.
>
>
>
> Rip the bandaid. Make open standards truly open.
>
>
>
> With my SC29/WG3 member representative hat on (and _*not*_ serving in my
> capacity as a chair of this AHG) I object to this proposal. With many
> thousands of fonts currently deployed, and at least two (or more) different
> implementations available – this proposal, if considered, would do more
> harm than good.
>
>
>
> Okay let me narrow down the proposal to removing CFF2 only.
>
>
>
> Is there any evidence that there are "thousands of fonts currently
> deployed"? And is there any evidence of at least two different
> implementations (that is, that are not derived from same Adobe
> implementation)?
>
>
>
>
>
> Vlad
>
>
>
>
> behdad
> http://behdad.org/
> <https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/Cxg_C2kor7tk8jB6i1vjQu/>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20201007/745329ce/attachment-0001.html>