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

Fri Sep 18 18:00:31 CEST 2020

Adam,

[Not sure if we can beat Dave’s record of the longest email, but we are getting there! ☺]

On Friday, September 18, 2020 8:41 AM Adam Twardoch wrote:

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.

I do not disagree with the premise of major restructuring, especially if we do decide to go ahead with the 32-bit GID format change – this will require a major rewrite of many basic table structures.

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.

What I do not understand is how you propose we should do things before we get into the phase of proposals – this very email from you _is_ a proposal to restructure spec and rewrite things. The way I see it, we can independently discuss a new proposed spec structure, we can work independently on every atomic part of it (table descriptions, features, etc.) – I am sure each step of the way we will like have a proposal (or multiple proposals). It is all matter of design – if the design is good, the parts will fit and work together [but we cannot outsource the design work].

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.

Here is what I am hearing and this is something we need to think about ahead of time. You are essentially contemplating [and proposing] that there is a need for two new work items – a major structural and editorial rewrite of the existing OFF spec, and a completely new document that will be created based on this updated OFF text. The former doesn’t introduce major technical changes, and the latter will. The way to accomplish this, in my opinion, is to develop new edition of the OFF, and consider OFF2 an entirely new ISO standard, with its own part number.

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.

I hear you but I am not sure how to get there. Again, trying to change ways the organization operates may take long time and significant effort, or we can try and adapt to the current reality and find a way forward. The current ISO spec is a publicly available standard, and each and every participant can download their own licensed copy free of charge. (I just edited the README file of the OpenFontFormat repo to include the download links to both the main document and the latest amendment.)

So, as a group – we have a clean and known starting point – every single participant can view the documents and develop their own proposals based on them – proposed new structure, proposed new text for each clause/subclause that would benefit from editorial rewrite, etc. Once we have these individual proposals submitted and the new work item initiated – we will collect them all in a single Working Draft document that will be the basis for the OFF 5th edition text that CAN be made public. We can progress from there …

Does this make sense? Note that this whole process will still be based on the collection of proposals from all involved ;-)

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.

The “OFF refactoring” is by itself a significant work, one that is likely be based on multiple proposals (starting with this one from you) and multiple iterations based on members’ review. How else can we get to the end of the refactoring phase?

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.

With my AHG chair hat on, I’d like to remind us all that we cannot speak on behalf of other members of the group. Microsoft is a member and is a major implementer of the standard – the collaborative nature of our work demands that we consider different points of view and strive to make consensus-based decisions.

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.

I am in full agreement here! This was the intended outcome all along – starting with the original submission and multiple iterations that were made based on the collective work of this community and multiple contributions.

Perhaps ISO might also see this particular process as a useful exercise (experiment) in adopting a more flexible/modern workflow.

We can only hope! Not many things changed in my 18 years of working with ISO organization, but there have been changes.

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.

It is true that working with the 700+ pages long PDF document is cumbersome. The HTML based OFF copy that can is publicly available would be a great resource – not having that was exactly the reason why there was a strong desire to keep OFF and OpenType specs synchronized and alive. I am not sure if ISO organization will change their publishing process to allow their standards to exist online though, and there is something to be said about their desire to have ISO standards published in a format that can be considered as close to the “paper” form as possible. Industries do value stability and peace of mind.
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.

I propose that we raise this as an issue in our AHG report for the upcoming WG meeting, which will be held in just three weeks, on Oct. 12-16. We need to start somewhere, and this would be the good first step.

Thank you,
Vlad

A.

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

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 11:37 PM Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky at monotype.com<mailto: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<mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>

https://lists.aau.at/mailman/listinfo/mpeg-otspec<https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/Yh54C82xAMhj632JC1wy1D>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200918/34258520/attachment-0001.html>