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

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

On Monday, September 14, 2020 10:42 PM Dave Crossland wrote:

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 3:45 PM Peter Constable <pgcon6 at msn.com<mailto:pgcon6 at msn.com>> wrote:
By “one step at a time”, all I was saying was that, before technical discussion of #3 (step-change improved format) happens in this list, I think discussion it should be preceded by discussion of business goals, etc. for such work.

Formally, SC29 doesn’t have any approved project for working on a new format, and so technical discussion of any new format is not formally in scope for the AHG. In terms of formal SC29 process, technical activity on new formats would need to be preceded by approval of a New Work Item Proposal (NWIP) by SC29. A NWIP is primarily about business goals and project plan. Now discussion on preparing a NWIP could certainly potentially happen here (I don’t think the scope given to the AHG by SC29/WGx precludes that).

That all makes sense; but I was under the impression that the AHG has an extremely wide remit to discuss any relevant topics.

Vlad, what is needed to get the ball rolling on such a NWIP? What is the end to end protocol?

One of the approved AHG mandates is “3. Develop and propose to WG11 the items that would become the basis for a new work item, and suggest a way forward”, so yes – any technical / business / requirements-related discussions and any exploration activities that need to happen to help SC29 to assess the needs for new standardization work that would lead to official NWIP approval are absolutely within the scope of the current AHG activities.

More so, the AHG mandates aren’t just given to us from above, they reflect real needs and aspirations of the communities we serve, and we as a group can have a meaningful input to define future mandates.

But IMO I think it would be better for that to happen elsewhere. ... FTCG would be a better place to start preliminary discussion related to step-change improved formats that might eventually lead to a NWIP.

If that's where the best place is, I'm all for it. But this isn't clear to me. I'm particuarly keen to hear from Vlad :)

Like I mentioned in my previous email, I am confident that the discussions happening in the FTCG will influence and inform the decisions that directly affect font format standardization activities – whether they end up being clarifications and amendments to existing parts of OFF standard, or provide the basis for new work item proposal. For as long as the end results of the discussion are shared with this group and provide a useful input for font format standardization work to continue with wide participation of all major vendors and contributors - I do not see any reasons for concern. However, given the current AHG mandate that specifically encourage us to consider future industry needs and develop new work item proposals, I do not see any reason why it would be better for relevant discussions to happen elsewhere – this AHG is a fine venue for it to happen.

We also need to be mindful of the existing and proposed scope of work and venues / organizational boundaries. W3C and ISO have enjoyed a long history of successful collaborative relationships (CSS WG liaison that is part of the current AHG mandate is the most recent example of it) and we, as a community, have been contributors to both organizations’ activities – I want to make sure that we respect these organizational boundaries for the greater benefit of all involved.

Thanks,
Vlad


Cheers
Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200915/e568fa73/attachment-0001.html>