<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Yes, changing the external reference in
the bibliography section would provide a better informative list
than we have now, and that would be better than nothing.<br>
<br>
But to my mind it would be even better to have a normative list as
this provides motivation for tool developers to update their
products to conform to the standard list, and this is a win for
font developers. <br>
<br>
Bob<br>
<br>
On 2013-09-13 at 10:33 Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid #009900 !important;
border-right: 2px solid #009900 !important; padding: 0px 15px 0px
15px; margin: 8px 2px;"
cite="mid:79E5B05BFEBAF5418BCB714B43F4419923EDBD53@wob-mail-01"
type="cite"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">It
seems that resolving the issue you found with glyph names would
be as easy as changing the external informative reference in the
“Bibliography” section – would you still prefer to have the
glyph names explicitly listed in the annex to the spec?<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>