<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cordia New";
panose-1:2 11 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">I’ve drafted proposed revisions to the “Application interface” portion of features ‘unic’ to ‘zero’, removing content that was simply repeating general info on GSUB/GPOS processing, and replacing it with info that seems more relevant. I’ve
given details for the draft in the discussion area of <span lang="EN-CA"><a href="https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/typography-issues/issues/601">Issue 601</a>. Feedback is invited.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Peter</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Peter Constable <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, September 7, 2020 11:16 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> MPEG OT Spec list (mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at) <mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at><br>
<b>Subject:</b> "application interface" in feature descriptions<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">In feature descriptions in the OT and OFF feature registry, one of the fields of information is “Application interface”. The wording of most (all?) of these is strange because they’re worded as though a feature is a function.
E.g., <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">“</span><em><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:#171717;background:white">Application interface:</span></em><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI",sans-serif;color:#171717;background:white"> For
GIDs found in the 'valt' coverage table, the application passes the GIDs to the table and gets back positional adjustments (YPlacement).</span><span lang="EN-CA">”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">While it might be clear to most what is meant, strictly this is nonsense since neither Feature tables nor the associated lookup (sub)tables are functions: they’re just data.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">This was called out by Simon Cozens in discussion of an issue for one of the feature descriptions, but it’s a more general issue. I’ve opened
<a href="https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/typography-issues/issues/601">an issue</a> against the OT spec for this and have drafted revised wording for several descriptions (for u to z) to provide a sense of what better wording might look like.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Having said that, it seems to me that the
<i>Application interface</i> information (at least, for most descriptions) is completely redundant as it simply repeats what is defined in the GPOS and GSUB chapters (how are lookup subtables used in processing glyph sequences). So, it makes me wonder…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Q: Would it be better if the <i>Application interface</i> portion of feature descriptions were removed?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Q: Is there any feature for which there is some useful application information that isn’t a repeat of GPOS/GSUB that should be kept?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>