[MPEG-OTSPEC] Proposal to discontinue the AdHoc Group

[John Hudson]

On 23092020 3:21 pm, Peter Constable wrote:
>
> Microsoft as owners and stewards of the OT spec have at times provided 
> a context in which MS and other industry collaborators could innovate 
> on the font format and feed those innovations into OFF. In those 
> situations, that context provided just the kind of buffer you 
> describe. Variations is an familiar example of that.
>
Yes, and when that has been possible I preferred that to dealing with 
the MPEG OFF process, at the same time as recognising that it was a 
closed process that granted me access that wouldn't be given to a lot of 
other people.

> But when MS has been inactive, that has not prevented innovations 
> going into OFF. On the contrary, there are several counterexamples. 
> SVG and CBDT tables are well-known examples. But there have also been 
> several OTL features that were added to the feature registry or 
> descriptions of features significantly revised (some of which you 
> contributed) that came into OFF directly without needing any action on 
> MS’ part.
>
The colour font tables came from individual companies that had developed 
them internally, implemented them internally, and then brought them 
fully formed to OFF. I don't think anyone thinks this was a good way for 
things to happen, and the fact that so many years later there still 
isn't consistent colour font support and recent elements of a mini font 
table war between COLR and SVG really suggests that this kind of 
non-collaboration isn't a good model.

With regard to minor things like adding or revising OTL features, well, 
they hardly constitute innovation. My own involvement was a tidying 
operation to bring some existing feature descriptions in line with 
actual implementations. At the time, I asked whether I should pursue 
this through Microsoft of MPEG—either would have been fine with me for 
the limited purpose—and someone at Microsoft (you? Greg?) suggested 
using the MPEG process. And it was fine for that kind of thing, although 
if I were doing it today I would use GitHub or Google Docs for draft 
editing purposes, i.e. exactly the kind of thing people are saying they 
want to be able to do.

> Wrt OFF, AFAIFK MS has never had any more veto influence than any 
> other company that might comment on a proposal to say, “not 
> sufficiently reviewed” or “needs revision” or some such comments 
> indicating concern with the proposed change.
>
So what happened to those proposals? Were they ever sufficiently 
reviewed or revised? I am totally with you on all proposals needing 
careful review (and preferably demonstrable implementation) before they 
are subject to the ratification process. But that requires active and 
ongoing participation, which isn't something that Microsoft was or is 
contributing to OFF. Meanwhile, there are a lot of people who do want to 
engage in active and ongoing participation, but they're not sure what 
happens to their efforts if Microsoft comes along at a late stage and 
objects to the proposal or says they can't or won't implement it.

JH


-- 

John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks Ltd    www.tiro.com
Salish Sea, BC        tiro at tiro.com

NOTE: In the interests of productivity, I am currently
dealing with email on only two days per week, usually
Monday and Thursday unless this schedule is disrupted
by travel. If you need to contact me urgently, please
use some other method of communication. Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20200923/6cd6a84a/attachment.html>