[MPEG-OTSPEC] [EXTERNAL] WD review and input contribution deadline

Thu Jun 9 02:34:08 CEST 2022

Hi Peter,

Thank you very much for your review of the WD changes.

I reviewed the AMD1 text once again against the WD, and I did miss the
changes made in the 6th paragraph of 6.4.2 and will add them to the new WD
(version 2) text, as well as the other corrections in 6.4.3.2. 

As far as 6.3.3 is concerned, as part of the editorial review, while doing a
full document conversion to a new ISO house style, I did a minor update to
the document structure - the subclause 6.3.3.1 "Overview" was split by
giving "GPOS table organization" its own numbered subclause 6.3.3.2, and the
rest of the subclauses got renumbered as a result. I also added numbered
level 5 subclauses to each GPOS Lookup type description. This was all done
as part of the editorial conversion to a new house style, and the editorial
changes were made (and accepted) before any substantive changes from Amd.1
and Amd.2 were introduced. 

FYI - I am in the process of working with the ISO EPM staff finalizing
editorial review of the FDAM2 text. Once it is completed, I expect there
will be other minor editorial changes to the structure/content of subclause
5.7.11 - primarily due to their requirements to eliminate the hanging
paragraphs in some of the lower level subclauses.

Thank you,

Vlad

From: Peter Constable [mailto:pconstable at microsoft.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:57 PM
To: Vladimir Levantovsky <vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com>; 'MPEG OT Spec
list' <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at>
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] [EXTERNAL] WD review and input contribution
deadline

Vlad:

I wasn't expecting to have to review whether this WD accurately reflects
changes in Amds 1 and 2. I'm still reviewing Amd 1 and seeing significant
issues. So, I hope you weren't counting on advancing the WD to CD: it's not
ready!

The subclauses of 6.3.3 appear to have been renumbered. I don't have a
problem with that change, but it's not reflected in the change tracking of
the WD.

Re 6.3.3.3.3 (prev. 6.3.3.2): Amd 1 made a revision to this section by
inserting paragraphs after the first paragraph. However, it did not alter
the first paragraph, nor did Amd 2. So that first paragraph should be as in
the 4th edn. However, in the WD, that first paragraph appears after the
inserted paragraphs and is being deleted. It needs to be restored as the
first paragraph.In 

In 6.4.2: Amd 1 replaced the text of the sixth paragraph. This is not
reflected in the WD.

Peter

From: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at
<mailto:mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at> > on behalf of Peter Constable
<pconstable at microsoft.com <mailto:pconstable at microsoft.com> >
Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 at 4:11 PM
To: Vladimir Levantovsky <vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com
<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com> >, 'MPEG OT Spec list'
<mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at <mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at> >
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] [EXTERNAL] WD review and input contribution
deadline

Further on 5.5.7 - this time I'll review the whole thing before sending.

In Amd 1, the text for example 3 was to have the following inserted:

"The visual result is the same as that shown for Example 2."

That insertion is reflected in the WD.

However, the 4th edition did not include a figure / visual for the second
example. It said, "The diagram is the same as in the above example." (That's
not great wording since it's not clear what is meant by "the diagram".) And
Amd 1 did not insert a figure for example 2.

I suggest that a figure should be added for example 2 for clarity. (This is
what is done in the
<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.micr
osoft.com%2Fen-us%2Ftypography%2Fopentype%2Fspec%2Fsvg%23example-2-glyph-spe
cified-directly-in-expected-position&data=05%7C01%7Cpconstable%40microsoft.c
om%7Ce6b541ac8c3e45bde88308da218fc027%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1
%7C0%7C637859202845948891%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIj
oiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TmlvCIfD0py6w
Oqal%2BYiaJuf4v7pVCdK3CG%2BMS8Zejg%3D&reserved=0> OT spec.) So, insert at
the end of example 2:

The following image shows the visual result:

In the text for example 5, there is a typo:

"The following image illustrate visual results."

Change "illustrate" to "illustrates".

For example 7, Amd 1 inserted the following after the code block:

"The following image shows the visual result:"

This is missing from the WD.

Peter

From: Peter Constable <pconstable at microsoft.com
<mailto:pconstable at microsoft.com> >
Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:13 PM
To: Vladimir Levantovsky <vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com
<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com> >, 'MPEG OT Spec list'
<mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at <mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at> >
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] [EXTERNAL] WD review and input contribution
deadline

Sent too soon:

The remainder of that portion of the changes in Amd 1 also are not
reflected. The second paragraph of 5.5.7 (was 5.5.6) was supposed to be
revised. Change

". an OFF font with SVG glyph outlines."

To 

". an OFF font with SVG glyph descriptions."

Peter

From: Peter Constable <pconstable at microsoft.com
<mailto:pconstable at microsoft.com> >
Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 at 3:10 PM
To: Vladimir Levantovsky <vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com
<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com> >, 'MPEG OT Spec list'
<mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at <mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at> >
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] [EXTERNAL] WD review and input contribution
deadline

It's evident to me now that the changes reflected in the WD do include
changes in Amd 1 and Amd 2.

In Amd 1, the first two paragraphs of 5.5.7 (was 5.5.6) were replaced.
However, the first of those paragraphs is still retained in the WD:

""SVG glyph descriptions must be defined."

The content of that paragraph is redundant: the relevant points are covered
in 5.5.5. That paragraph should be deleted from the WD.

Peter

From: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at
<mailto:mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at> > on behalf of Peter Constable
<pconstable at microsoft.com <mailto:pconstable at microsoft.com> >
Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 at 2:30 PM
To: Vladimir Levantovsky <vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com
<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com> >, 'MPEG OT Spec list'
<mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at <mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at> >
Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] [EXTERNAL] WD review and input contribution
deadline

Vlad:

Do the changes shown by change tracking reflect changes in Amd 1 and Amd 2,
or only new changes post Amd 2?

From: mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at
<mailto:mpeg-otspec-bounces at lists.aau.at> > on behalf of Vladimir
Levantovsky <vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com
<mailto:vladimir.levantovsky at gmail.com> >
Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 at 10:41 PM
To: 'MPEG OT Spec list' <mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at
<mailto:mpeg-otspec at lists.aau.at> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [MPEG-OTSPEC] WD review and input contribution deadline

Dear AHG members,

The text of the new, 5th edition Working Draft of ISO/IEC 14496-22 "Open
Font Format" is available for public review and can downloaded using the
following link:
<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpeg.
org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fmpeg_meetings%2F137_OnLine%2Fw21212.zip&data=05
%7C01%7Cpconstable%40microsoft.com%7Ce6b541ac8c3e45bde88308da218fc027%7C72f9
88bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637859202845998888%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbG
Zsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3
000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=r7U276BScCBvte7BEJrLzKacSelxJIJNZz7V7LF2dbo%3D&reserved=0
>
https://www.mpeg.org/wp-content/uploads/mpeg_meetings/137_OnLine/w21212.zip.
Please also note that any additional changes need to be submitted for
discussion at the next WG3 meeting, which will take place on April 25-29.
The deadline for submission of the input contributions is April 18th.

Thank you,

Vladimir

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20220608/fcfe4c29/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8219 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20220608/fcfe4c29/attachment-0001.png>