<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> </head> <body><div class="auto-created-dir-div" dir="ltr" style="unicode-bidi: embed;"><style>p{margin:0}</style><div><span style="text-align: left; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: pre-wrap; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="arial, sans-serif">Peter Constable wrote:</font></span><br></div><p><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><font face="arial, sans-serif"></font><br></p><p><font face="arial, sans-serif">> <span style="box-sizing: border-box;">I’d prefer to see more thumbs up on anything before adoption.</span></font></p><p><span style="text-align: left; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-transform: none; text-indent: 0px; letter-spacing: normal; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; word-spacing: 0px; display: inline !important; white-space: pre-wrap; orphans: 2; float: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br/>The problem with that is that it effectively gives a veto to progress to large companies.<br/><br/>'If there is good opportunity to object and there are no objections then that is fine.<br/><br/>It is like adding a script to Unicode. Those with an interest opine, others, who may never use that script but have no wish to oppose others doing so and may wish them well in their efforts, say nothing.<br/><br/>If a new script needed positive endorsement from at least some number of big companies, the script might never get encoded.<br/><br/>Objecting can be effective. Objections to my localizable sentences invention led to discussion of l<span style="display: inline !important; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; white-space: pre-wrap; word-spacing: 0px;">ocalizable sentences being banned in the Unicode mailing list. So progress has been delayed. So the status quo over encoding localizable sentences into Unicode is as if it is on the lower surface of a cusp catastrophe manifold and it has quite a ceiling to breach before it becomes encoded into Unicode. It needs to be super-excellent to overcome the objections.<br/><br/>So I am opposed to a process where progress suggested by someone needs positive endorsement. If, given the opportunity to object, nobody objects, then, in my opinion, that is sufficient for acceptance.<br/><br/>William Overington<br/><br/> Thursday 20 August 2020<br/></span><b><br/></b></span></p><p><b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike><br></p><p><br></p><br><blockquote style="margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 2em; border-left:2px solid #00ADE5; white-space: pre-wrap "><br><br>------ Original Message ------<br>From: "Peter Constable" <pgcon6@msn.com><br>To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>; "David Singer" <singer@apple.com><br>Cc: "mpeg-otspec" <mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at><br>Sent: Wednesday, 2020 Aug 19 At 19:22<br>Subject: Re: [MPEG-OTSPEC] Updates to specification<br><br> <div class="WordSection1"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">My remarks were focused on what things look like if we try to move in the direction of more formal ISO processes, not the way we have done things via the AHG.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">I have pointed out in the past and again this morning in another thread that a weakness in the current AHG process is that it’s possible for things to go into OFF without really having had a lot of review from implementers. Not that there hasn’t been reasonable opportunity for review, but more that the engagement is passive: a proposal can be made and incorporated unless objections are raised, with silence treated as implicit consent. But I don’t think it can really be considered consent if a proposal wasn’t actually reviewed: silence gives no indication up, down or sideways. I’d prefer to see more thumbs up on anything before adoption.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;">Peter</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri,sans-serif;"> </span></p> <div><div style="border: none;border-top: solid rgb(225,225,225) 1.0pt;padding: 3.0pt 0.0in 0.0in 0.0in;"><p class="MsoNormal"><br/></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></body></html>