<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=utf-8">
<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;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.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="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">> <span lang="EN-CA">I really hope we’re not going to try to define some entirely new font format by email.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Someone mentioned offline that my brief message, saying what I don’t want but not what I would want to see happen, might come across as trying to shut down discussion and block progress. I think that’s valid feedback, and so want to correct
that with a brief elaboration.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clearly, my statement indicates a desire to shut down discussion—_<i>in this current mode and context</i>_.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For one thing, I thought there had been general consensus that a topic like creating an entirely new format would be pending a discussion elsewhere (the TFCG) on what new areas of activity should be discussed and what the appropriate context(s)
for those should be. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Secondly, discussion was bringing up specific design details (dropping CFF, what OS/2 metrics are needed, how formats for graphic elements should be architected), which is putting the cart waaaaayyyy ahead of the horse: As Adam and Vlad
suggested, this topic needs to start with a cost-benefit analysis. I’d expand that a bit: any work to start in this direction would need a carefully thought-out business case _<i>and</i>_ strategic roadmap that can convince a broad range of vendors, including
most or all the majors, that there will be beneficial ROI and a feasible path to success that takes current realities into consideration. (Do I sound like a PM?) Engineering is first of all a matter of addressing real public or business problems or opportunities.
Without that, technical design is nothing more than a science project.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And until vendors have bought into a business case and strategic roadmap, talk of a _<i>hugely</i>_ disruptive change (which is what is being discussed) is counter-productive: at best, a noisy distraction; and at worst, perceived as intended
to create discord and new font wars.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m all for designing a new and better mousetrap, and I’d be in favour of discussions that explore business case and possible paths to success. But I don’t think this email thread is net helping move toward that. Let’s progress one step
at a time, as generally agreed, in the TFCG.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Peter<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> Friday, September 11, 2020 3:57 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> mpeg-otspec <mpeg-otspec@lists.aau.at><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [MPEG-OTSPEC] Introducing breaking changes into the spec (was: RE: [EXTERNAL] Proposal to deprecate derived search values)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA">I really hope we’re not going to try to define some entirely new font format by email.<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>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>