<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7232.39">
<TITLE>Editorial comments on the proposed specification text</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Dear all,</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I've spent some time working with the latest version of the proposed text (m11183, with the latest changes by Mike Ksar), and would like to suggest the following editorial changes for consideration of the group:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">1. In my opinion, the document can be "flatten" by renumbering the clauses and subclauses to remove one extra layer of subclauses - this will improve readability.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">2. The original OpenType specification has parts of the text that define advanced tables, yet the general description of the advanced table structure (which is shared among all advanced tables) is provided as an Appendix to the spec. I think it will be useful to move it to the main part of the specification and place it in the text before the definition of specific tables - again, for improved readability and comprehension of the spec.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">3. The part of the document (pages 306-321) present WGL4.0 (Windows Glyph List ver. 4.0) character set</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">. I am not sure if it really belongs to font format specification. This is Windows-specific, and can always be found on Microsoft web site. In addition, this list would be a duplication of Unicode values already provided by the Unicode standard. I would remove this part to avoid any possible duplication and/or confusion.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">4. CFF and VORG tables - the text with the description of these tables is referenced in the OpenType specification as Adobe Technical Notes (and is included by web links). Since the original OpenType spec. is normatively referenced from both Adobe and Microsoft websites, it did not present any problems. In order to finish the integrated ISO document we need the text of these notes be provided as an input contribution from Adobe. The other option would be keeping these parts as the normative reference (e.g. to MPEG4, part 18).</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">5. TrueType Fundamentals (pages 322 - 465) - this appendix provides the information on the original TrueType. As the part of the original OpenType specification, it has been normatively referenced by part 18</FONT><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">. Do we really need to duplicate it here? This is provided on Microsoft website for historical reference purposes. I doubt that anybody other then type designers would need this info, and font designers already have it (or know where to find it). We can either include it in the text (which is quite lengthy), or keep it as a normative reference and significantly reduce the size of the document.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">6. Starting on page 475 - OpenType specification change log. Should we keep it in the ISO text. I understand that OT version 1.4 has gone through some important changes but we (ISO) have decided to take version 1.4 as the starting point. It may be confusing to keep the changes log in the ISO document that has just been created.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">7. General comment - the original text has many references to something that is Windows-specific. We may need to carefully examine them and either remove or substitute (if necessary) with generic examples.</FONT></P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Best regards,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Vlad</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>