[MPEG-OTSPEC] Introducing breaking changes into the spec (was: RE: [EXTERNAL] Proposal to deprecate derived search values)

[Dave Crossland]

Hmm. I've heard from some that TFCG *isn't* expected to charter font format
spec work, but rather only the shaping spec work, which is adjacent and
interrelated. I've heard from others that the TFCG *is* expected to spin
off several CGs/WGs, at least one on font format specs.

That work is already happening on 3 levels: (1) authoring docs on the
already implemented tech, (2) authoring incremental improvements to that
tech, and (3) authoring a step-change improved format.

Peter, suggesting a serial approach ("one step at a time"), seems to me
counter to what I see as generally agreed and already widely enacted, which
is a parallel approach: These 3 tracks have been happening, in parallel,
for years and will continue to happen _somewhere_.

It's only question of where.

Rod and Peter, while I didn't see your suggestions to use the FTCG mailing
list or other fora instead of the AHG repo as attempts to start a font war,
lol, I don't think _any_ FTCG venue is yet chartered for _any_ technical
discussion, and as I said above, its not clear that FTCG fora will have
font formats in scope.

Peter and Vlad, you have special positions as the editors of the MSOT and
OFF specs. You've both posted responses in the last few days that I myself
did interpret as trying to shut down discussion and progress that is newly
happening in the AHG space around the 3rd track. So I'm glad to hear from
Vlad that this was a misunderstanding, and this 3rd track is welcome within
the AHG. However, what seems to still be missing is that collaborative
authoring environment; the https://github.com/MPEGGroup/OpenFontFormat/
repo is "issue only" and no collaborative authoring of files is expected
there, at present.

But perhaps if we follow Rod's suggestion to start posting all desirable
change ideas as issues on the repo, and tag (or put into milestones) each
issue to clearly mark which track it is on, then another tag can be added
to indicate the idea is ready to move to authoring, and Pull Requests with
drafts can be linked to the issues and commented on line by line before
merged into meaningful "trunk" branches. (Perhaps Peter this is more what
you mean by "one step at a time"? :)

What happened so far this year, to my eyes, is that ISO/MPEG had a window
of opportunity to lead in providing a space for the font format spec
discussions _and_ collaborative authoring, and it seems that window is now
closing (but not fully closed) and they have ceded that opportunity to W3C,
as there is no collaborative authoring space allowed here.

If it does turn out to be the case, that collaborative authoring isn't
possible in the AHG repo, and the window closes, then what I expect
will happen is that the "real work" on all 3 tracks will happen at W3C, and
what will happen in the MPEG space is that "finished" change proposals will
be posted here, and this will become (remain?) a 'mere' forum to voice
objections that weren't heard upstream, and with the formal ISO WG as a
final backstop forum for objections.

...This would be surprising to me, because I had heard earlier this year
that this was the best forum available today for font format work, which
I'd understood to mean all 3 tracks. But if that's how it is, that's how it
is :)  And I don't see how this should be controversial, since that is
pretty much what has been happening for many years, where the "real work"
happens elsewhere (like private Unicode lists) and then goes into the
MSOT spec, and finally then change proposals are posted here.

Really, my interest is to clarify and clearly document the whole thing; I
don't mind too much where the "real work" happens, as long as it is
effective, and everyone knows where to go.

It seems worth being explicit here that I as Google have already
commissioned work on (3) from Black Foundry and Just van Rossum as part of
the RoboCJK project, which is happening on that GitHub repo. Just like the
COLR work, I don't think this location is ideal, not at all. Similarly,
Simon is working on all 3 tracks at an impressive pace of his own
initiative, not funded by Google, on commontype.org and its associated
Github repos. I can imagine that Simon's project may move to an MPEG repo,
or a FTCG repo - but that's up to him.

While there are separate adjacent areas of interest and different costs and
benefits to different organizational homes, there is value in common
procedures. A set of repos scattered in org-less or single-vendor spaces, a
set of repos within GitHub.com/font-text, and issues-only repos for
Microsoft OpenType & Related Specs ("MSOT"?) and ISO/MPEG OFF ("MOFF"?) is
the current state of affairs.

I'd like to see them converge a bit more, and de-duplicate as much as
possible.

But in no scenario do I see any font wars emerging. The font wars were of a
time when font formats were encumbered by proprietary licensing regimes,
and I've heard nothing in 2020 that indicates any one expects any
contributions to any upcoming formats to not be intended for extremely wide
implementation. I think the business case for that is clear to everyone
here... If any vendor chooses to delay implementation of a format that they
are completely free to implement, that's not a war :) And its also the
current state of affairs for OFF: large parts of OFF are not widely
implemented by major vendors today.

Cheers
Dave

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200914/232839c3/attachment-0001.html>