[MPEG-OTSPEC] [EXTERNAL] Re: Request for OFF Github Repo

[Adam Twardoch (Lists)]

Vlad,

I agree with Dave: what is badly needed (plus there is a good energy for it
now), is a major structural reworking of the spec.

If your take a look at the example I provided in

https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/2020-September/002286.html

you'll see that the spec is just an incredibly convoluted mess. It fails on
basic things like a clean structure, some conceptual modularization,
terminology etc. etc. In one place "CFF" means "CFF1" but in other places
it means "CFF1 or CFF2". That's just a basic example.

So the spec needs a major reworking **before** this gets into the phase of
proposals. Simple amendments won't do, because what we got from simple
amendments is more chaos.

It's not at all clear which parts of the format are pertaining to line
layout and shaping, which are about glyph rendering, which are about font
selection, and which intersect.

OFF sometimes gives high exposure to things that are irrelevant today (e.g.
legacy Mac language IDs), sometimes does not give exposure to things that
are of high relevance (the actual inter-relations of various entries).

The existing text of the OFF would be helpful as a **reference**, and it
would be helpful as a resource from which people can copy-paste and rework,
or even gradually mark which things are refactored and which are not.

I think if we ever think about moving towards OFF 2.0, we should first
create a new clean structure of the current OFF.So it's an editorial
rewrite (refactoring) without any substantial functional changes. Adding
clarifications and inter-relations, splitting factual data from "frivolous
commentary" (like those ad-hoc comments about some "WWS" is the name table,
which are inserted into what is a list of fields.

Overall, the refactored OFF1 should not introduce new functionality or
breaking changes. It should be a cleaned-up expression of what the current
format is. And I'd use that opportunity for identifying candidates for
deprecation (PCLT table, kern table  etc.) or at least marking some things
as "legacy". Further, this new take should use a more formalized language,
incl. must/shall/may etc.

For that, we would benefit from having the current source representation in
a format which is useful for collaborative editing.

At the end of that phase, there would be a formulation of a technical
contribution which would be the new text. For that, we'd produce a .docx
again if needed.

And then, that new text could serve as basis for OFF2, that would include
new functionalities. But IMO no reasonable submissions can be made into OFF
before the refactoring.

OFF as it is now is bad. It's not bad because of ISO — it's bad because
it's based on a non-standard, a non-spec, a collection of notes of varying
quality that inherits from OpenType and has a long historical baggage.

If we can use ISO’s existing documents and the infrastructure like the
repos for doing the work, I think it'll hugely benefit the OFF and might
help ISO. Right now, OFF is a derivative of Microsoft OpenType, so in fact
Microsoft OpenType is the “lead”.

But developing Microsoft OpenType any further is not easy, also because
Microsoft does not have the necessary resources.

OFF is an international standard. There is genuine interest and energy
among professionals and companies to improve the common font format and its
documentation/specification. If that work is based on OFF, then ultimately
ISO OFF has a chance to become a *real* standard, "the thing". Future OSes
and apps will implement ISO OFF fonts, and designers will develop OFF fonts.

Of course Microsoft could easily adopt the refactored OFF as the basis of
their OpenType spec. Microsoft and Apple will be free to supplement their
specs with specific notes that pertain to them.

Perhaps ISO might also see this particular process as a useful exercise
(experiment) in adopting a more flexible/modern workflow. At the same time,
there is virtually no risk for ISO to try this with OFF specifically —
exactly because OFF has not until now been the widely-regarded reference
spec for the font format — instead, OpenType was.

What we’d like to do is to make the necessary work that could make OFF a
real, relevant standard that is not just “on paper”. With an open,
community access to the current editor’s draft it will be simply easier.

A.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2020 at 13:58, Dave Crossland <dcrossland at google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 11:37 PM Levantovsky, Vladimir <
> Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> when the time comes for much more substantial changes (looking back at
>> and remembering 100+ pages of contributions for variable fonts in OFF 4th
>> edition),
>>
>> we may still use email list for more substantive discussions.
>>
>
> Is that MAY or SHALL? 😂
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20200918/88ec1ac1/attachment.html>