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

[Levantovsky, Vladimir]

We just have to remember if we want other people to implement we need to do our due diligence at some point and get the spec updated.

We also need to be realistic of the potential challenges with new technology adoption _from the end-user point of view_. Today’s reality is that the current implementations are widespread, offering ubiquitous support for exchange of font resources everywhere (Web, CE devices and applications, interactive TV broadcast, subtitles, …). The benefits of new technology may not offer noticeable advantages for many users, and it may not at all be obvious for authors why new spec is something they need to care about. I envision that both “old” and “new” technologies [when developed] will co-exist for quite some time, which has an obvious impact on adoption curve and highlights the needs for clearly defined business case. Remember, consider users over authors over implementers over specifiers …

Vlad


From: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at> On Behalf Of Roderick Sheeter
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2020 11:30 AM
To: Simon Cozens <simon at simon-cozens.org>
Cc: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] Introducing breaking changes into the spec (was: RE: [EXTERNAL] Proposal to deprecate derived search values)

I see the hackers path as wide open! Font compiler and rendering stack are open source, we can (and IMHO should) play with implementation as early as we like without regard for business cases and spec changes. Q

We just have to remember if we want other people to implement we need to do our due diligence at some point and get the spec updated.

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 12:22 AM Simon Cozens <simon at simon-cozens.org<mailto:simon at simon-cozens.org>> wrote:
On 15/09/2020 04:50, David Lemon wrote:
> But I'd seriously emphasize Peter's points about building the business
> case. I kinda get the sense Dave thinks it will all be self evident, but
> that's not how business cases work. As someone who struggled to get
> required buy-in for some of the main developments we use today, I can
> assure you there's no such thing as a no-brainer.

As much as it pains me (as a gung-ho developer) to admit this, I think
you're right. Unless there are clear and compelling reasons to move to
something else, it won't happen. Building both the business case and the
coalition is really important.

That said, I would strongly *recommend* putting the cart before the
horse! Or at least allowing the cart and the horse to be in whatever
order people like. For some of the people you want to have involved, a
period of frenzied, anything-goes creativity about what a new font
format might look like (whether here or elsewhere) will expose where the
energy is and where the current pain points are much better than forcing
them to articulate a business-focused justification. So long as all
concerned are aware that this is just brainstorming and not every wild
idea is likely to be taken up, then I think it's important not to quench
that creativity too prematurely. We can attack the issue from both ends
simultaneously: gather ideas and building the business case. Indeed,
each will need to inform the other.

To put it another way, thinking about implementation is precisely how
developers express what's important to them.

S
_______________________________________________
mpeg-otspec mailing list
mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at<mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
https://lists.aau.at/mailman/listinfo/mpeg-otspec<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/SSS3CwpA5KsLGzw2FVhCQ2>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200915/e4a75315/attachment-0001.html>