<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13082020 8:18 am, Simon Cozens
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:652593f1-54ba-f984-4e48-32a00bcc7ae2@simon-cozens.org"> Thank
you so much for the explanation. That makes a lot of sense. It
sounds like: this AHG has an open and formalized process for
approving changes, as opposed to the somewhat opaque process that
happens when a Github issue is submitted; changes are submitted to
ISO through this group, so this is the right place for OFF
proposals in the first instance; and MS picks up and integrates
accepted proposals made on this list anyway (and probably should
not be integrating proposals not discussed here).
</blockquote>
<p>Well...</p>
<p>There is no formal agreement between Microsoft as owner of the
OpenType spec and ISO as maintainer of the OFF spec regarding
continued synchronisation or even functional compatibility. So
while, to date, efforts have been made to keep the two
specifications in synch — even to the extent of Microsoft
incorporating the CBDT, sbix, and SVG colour font tables, which
were first accepted into OFF, in addition to their own COLR/CPAL
format — there is no guarantee that the specifications will remain
in synch. Microsoft is not obliged to accept changes proposed and
approved through the ISO process, and ISO is not obliged to
approve changes that Microsoft make.</p>
<p>Note that Peter’s carefully worded response refers to Microsoft
‘consulting other platform vendors’ and ‘keeping Apple, their
original TT partner, in the loop’ — <i>not</i> to making use of
the ISO process. To my knowledge the only change to the OpenType
specification that was directly proposed, reviewed, and approved
through the ISO process was the change to the init, medi, fina,
and isol feature descriptions a few years ago, and I had already
checked with Microsoft that they agreed with the changes in
principle before I submitted the proposals to the OFF AHG. In that
case, the ISO process was just a convenient way to do the
editorial work on what were, after all, changes only to a
registry, not to part of the core OT specification.</p>
<p>In the absence of any formal agreement to maintain synchronicity
and compatibility between OT and OFF, I have tended to operate on
the basis of which process seems stronger in terms of achieving
things that will be implemented: Microsoft’s ad hoc consultation
with platform vendors (specifically Apple, Adobe, and Google) and
some font developers, or ISO/MPEG's AHG process. And, frankly, the
former has always seemed stronger: if that group of platform
vendors agrees to implement something, e.g. OT variations, it is
probably going to get implemented; whereas, adding things to OFF
doesn't even guarantee that they’ll make it into the OT spec let
alone get implemented. Let's be clear: the major platform vendors
and all the font makers are implementing OpenType; they are not
implementing OFF except insofar as the latter happens to be
synchronous with OT. [There are, apparently, companies that <i>officially</i>
implement the OFF spec, because it provides a way for them to
implement OT without appearing to be bound to a proprietary
technology, but I've never heard any developer of either software
or fonts actually talk about anything other than OpenType.]<br>
</p>
<p>So...</p>
<p>OpenType, a proprietary technology owned by Microsoft, is the de
facto standard. OFF, as an ISO standard with an open and
formalised process for approving changes, is the de jure standard.</p>
<p>Now...</p>
<p>Although I wasn’t philosophically happy with the lack of
transparency and openness in the ad hoc OpenType processes, I was
practically happy to engage in them when they could get things
done. The problem is that after the OT variations release in 2016,
those processes ceased to get things done, mostly because
Microsoft management took Peter off the OT editorship, and didn’t
replace him. This has meant that not only the processes but the
spec itself is in limbo. This was really brought home to me after
the last face-to-face meetings of the ad hoc working group that
Behdad hosted at Facebook last summer, when not one of the things
we had discussed over three days — including things we all agreed
were critically important, such as a new version of the avar table
or similar implementation for virtual/meta axes — got done, either
in terms of specification or implementation.</p>
<p>And...</p>
<p>That’s where we still are. My concern as we consider the scope of
a proposed text processing and display working group — I think
calling it a 'shaping working group' is begging the question with
regard to scope —, is that we can easily come up with a lot of
excellent ideas and write proposals and other documents, and if we
go through the ISO AHG process we can even get these things
incorporated into the OFF de jure standard, <i>and there will
still be no guarantee that any of them will get implemented or
even get incorporated into the OT de facto standard.</i><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>JH<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks Ltd <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.tiro.com">www.tiro.com</a>
Salish Sea, BC <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tiro@tiro.com">tiro@tiro.com</a>
NOTE: In the interests of productivity, I am currently
dealing with email on only two days per week, usually
Monday and Thursday unless this schedule is disrupted
by travel. If you need to contact me urgently, please
use some other method of communication. Thank you.</pre>
</body>
</html>