[MPEG-OTSPEC] Variable Composites and CFF2 (or other formats)

[Behdad Esfahbod]

Hi everyone,

I support an external VARC table as well. Where we got stuck is in the
discussions of:

  https://github.com/harfbuzz/boring-expansion-spec/issues/103

where I was happy to go ahead and prototype a table with
TupleVariationStore. But Skef wants both TupleVariationStore and
ItemVariationStore paths to be explored, and that was outside of my time
budget.

It's good that we now have it on the agenda who is supposed to work on it.

Thanks,

behdad
http://behdad.org/


On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 3:13 PM Liam R. E. Quin <liam at fromoldbooks.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 04:14 -0800, Skef Iterum wrote:
>
> > Of course, in practice this means that we're asking that variable
> > composites be taken out of the upcoming proposal (and that if it
> > isn't Adobe will vote not to approve it, and encourage others to do
> > the same). However, we want to stress that this does not necessarily
> > mean we will not vote in favor later if further research indicates
> > that glyf is the better way to go.
>
> Can we adopt a slightly different approach? We’re looking at coming up
> with a proposal for an external table, outside GLYF, as you/Adobe
> proposed, but in the meantime, since the ad hoc meeting is on Monday, i
> can't really change the proposal we've submitted.
>
> However, we do see the motivation, and the document is a working draft,
> so it can be changed, and that's fine.
>
> > Accordingly, we also suggest that how to go about that research and
> > development, including who needs to be involved, should be one topic
> > for the meeting next week.
>
> That's fine, i see Vlad added it to the agenda.
>
> And it'd be OK to vote for the existing Google proposal to go ahead but
> with variable composites removed, of course. Or, with the proviso that
> a proposal for an external table be developed at least far enough for
> concrete discussion.
>
> I don't know that we can a new external-table proposal ready by Monday,
> and in any case people won't have seen it. But we can put it in the
> Boring Expansions repository and send email about it.
>
> I'm sorry if we dropped the ball on the external table proposal;
> silence in this case was not a sign of disagreement or disapproval or
> anything; i should have pushed for discussion about it internally
> here).
>
> Anyway, either way is fine, but i want to avoid the situation where we
> end up with no variable composites at all by April, so having at least
> one approach, albeit a flawed one, in the working draft, might be
> better than none? What do you think? Again, it's a working draft, so we
> can take things out if a better approach is chosen, and that's true for
> any part of the proposals.
>
> Thanks,
>
> liam
>
> --
> Liam Quin, https://www.delightfulcomputing.com/
> Available for XML/Document/Information Architecture/XSLT/
> XSL/XQuery/Web/Text Processing/A11Y training, work & consulting.
> Barefoot Web-slave, antique illustrations:  http://www.fromoldbooks.org
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231206/de0d90f6/attachment.html>