<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"></head>
<body style="background-color: #fff;"><div><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial>
Michael,<br><br>First, welcome.<br><br>The "contingency processing" is inherent in the CFS object's definition. You see, today's "contingency processing" is done via font-fallback, which is based on a definition similar to CFS. In other words, developers who are using or depending upon font-fallback merely rewrite the definition as a CFS object.<br><br>Regards...<br><br>-- Ken<br></font></div>
<br><div><hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
<font face=Tahoma size=2>
<b>From</b>: mpeg-OTspec@yahoogroups.com <mpeg-OTspec@yahoogroups.com>
<br><b>To</b>: mpeg-OTspec@yahoogroups.com <mpeg-OTspec@yahoogroups.com>
<br><b>Sent</b>: Fri Jan 22 12:49:42 2010<br><b>Subject</b>: [mpeg-OTspec] Re: Draft CFS requirements
<br></font><br></div>
<span style="display:none"> </span>
<div id="ygrp-text">
<p><br>
<br>
First let me introduce myself. My name is Michael Warning and I'll be replacing Mikhail Leonov on the Microsoft side of things. I'm new to this whole process so I hope you'll bear with me as I get up to speed.<br>
<br>
The summary looks reasonable to me. My only comment is not so much about the document as about future agendas. In reference to "therefore component fonts are expected to be missing or misidentified and contingency processing is normal and expected", is it generally expected that the spec will define what that contingency processing is?<br>
<br>
--- In <a href="mailto:mpeg-OTspec%40yahoogroups.com">mpeg-OTspec@<wbr>yahoogroups.<wbr>com</a>, "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <vladimir.levantovs<wbr>ky@...> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Hi Ken,<br>
> <br>
> Thank you very much for your comments. Regarding the terminology - I will review it once again and replace Composite Font Format with CFS where appropriate; as far as CFS object is concerned - "Composite Font Standard object" (or CFS object) doesn't sound right, I think that "Composite Font object" (or CF object) would be a better term for it.<br>
> I will also review use cases and try to accommodate your comments.<br>
> <br>
> Thank you and best regards,<br>
> Vladimir<br>
> <br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: <a href="mailto:mpeg-OTspec%40yahoogroups.com">mpeg-OTspec@<wbr>yahoogroups.<wbr>com</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:mpeg-OTspec%40yahoogroups.com">mpeg-OTspec@<wbr>yahoogroups.<wbr>com</a>]<br>
> > On Behalf Of Ken Lunde<br>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:07 AM<br>
> > To: <a href="mailto:mpeg-OTspec%40yahoogroups.com">mpeg-OTspec@<wbr>yahoogroups.<wbr>com</a><br>
> > Subject: Re: [mpeg-OTspec] Draft CFS requirements<br>
> > <br>
> > Vladimir,<br>
> > <br>
> > I am away from work through the end of the week, attending the 2010<br>
> > SHOT Show, but I spent a few minutes going through this. It is a good<br>
> > summary of the requirements. The only suggestion I would make is one of<br>
> > terminology, specifically the following:<br>
> > <br>
> > CF object -> CFS object<br>
> > Composite Font (or Fonts) Format -> Composite Font Standard (or CFS)<br>
> > <br>
> > In other words, using the decided-upon terminology, meaning "Composite<br>
> > Font Standard" or "CFS," would be a a good thing.<br>
> > <br>
> > Also, in the "Use case descriptions" section, I think that the two<br>
> > distinct uses of CFS objects, specifically as a Composite Font or<br>
> > Fallback Font, should be explicitly mentioned.<br>
> > <br>
> > Regards...<br>
> > <br>
> > -- Ken<br>
> > <br>
> > On 2010/01/19, at 20:39, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > > [Attachment(<wbr>s) from Levantovsky, Vladimir included below]<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Dear all,<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I was asked to prepare a document that would summarize the draft<br>
> > requirements for CFS. Please see attached draft that is based on the<br>
> > document I submitted during the last ISO MPEG meeting. The current<br>
> > draft was extended to include the results of the discussion we had<br>
> > since the MPEG meeting in October.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Your comments are very much appreciated, please submit them no later<br>
> > than by the end of the day tomorrow (Wednesday, Jan. 20).<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > Thank you,<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Vladimir<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > ------------<wbr>---------<wbr>---------<wbr>------<br>
> > <br>
> > Yahoo! Groups Links<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> ><br>
><br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
<!-- end group email -->