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

[Roderick Sheeter]

My intent was that people would just post personal blogs (which I translate
to "post anywhere you like that people can access") and then email
somewhere appropriate (the CG list, this list, w/e we think is best). From
review of those posts we can start to identify specific projects we want to
take up, who is interested in which projects, etc.

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:32 AM Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com>
wrote:

>
> 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
>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200914/767fdc39/attachment.html>