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

[Skef Iterum]

I can't imagine that an external table proposal could be ready by the 
meeting time -- there are still a number of questions still to be 
explored. We certainly aren't asking for that.

The concern we have about just adding the current variable composite 
specification to the working draft is the "autopilot" nature of ISO 
processes. Admittedly there will still be a later vote (votes?) on 
whether to promote the working draft to the next version of the 
standard, but that's all-or-nothing. And yes, we can of course update 
the working draft incrementally, but if we run out of time that could 
get tricky.

I suppose we're reasoning along the same lines as the principle of "keep 
the main branch clean" -- that the working draft should be kept, as much 
as possible, something that could be the next standard if it needs to 
be. And therefore that generally speaking new content should be added 
only when, as far as the Ad Hoc group is aware at the time, it is what 
we expect to standardize.

However, opinions differ on this sort of thing and that's another thing 
we can discuss in the meeting.

About April - Our preference is that if it's a choice between having the 
/right/ version of the variable composites standard and having /some/ 
variable composites standard ready by April, we prefer the former. Of 
course, it would be better not to have to make that choice.

Skef

On 12/6/23 14:12, Liam R. E. Quin 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aau.at/pipermail/mpeg-otspec/attachments/20231206/1f1a370c/attachment.html>