DR 09-0061

[John Haug]

DR 09-0061 is marked as closed and integrated into the DCOR 2 under ballot.  Since it was never included, and thus never part of the material under ballot, I believe we are allowed to discuss it.  Murata-san previously indicated Japan would file the official DCOR comment about DR 09-0061 being missing.

Back to Suzuki-san's mail...  OK, if I understand correctly what you say below, it sounds like you and Greg are in agreement.

Here is the summary of the problem from my discussions with Greg.
 -- PANOSE "1.0" is the version of PANOSE used by TrueType and OpenType. The fields are defined here <http://www.microsoft.com/Typography/otspec/os2.htm#pan> and (this is important) the description of the contents of the fields are defined here: <http://www.microsoft.com/Typography/otspec/os2ver1.htm#pan>.
 -- PANOSE "1.5" is not part of the TrueType or OpenType specification and is defined here: <http://www.monotypeimaging.com/ProductsServices/pan1.aspx> 
 -- There is actually quite a significant difference between the specifications on <http://www.microsoft.com/Typography/otspec/os2ver1.htm#pan> and <http://www.monotypeimaging.com/ProductsServices/pan1.aspx>, in that with the latter MTI specification, the definition of digits 2-10 changes based on the value of the first digit.

Greg suggested the following regex "for PANOSE v1 where the definition of all the digits is static":
\s*(00\s*){10}\s*
\s*(01\s*){10}\s* 
\s*0[2-5]\s*0[0-9A-Fa-f]\s*0[0-9ABab]\s*0[0-9]\s*0[0-9]\s*0[0-9Aa]\s*0[0-9ABab]\s*0[0-9A-Fa-f]\s*0[0-9A-Da-d]\s*0[0-7]\s*

How does that regex compare to what you designed?

John

-----Original Message-----
From: suzuki toshiya [mailto:mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp] 
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 4:56 PM
To: John Haug
Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: DR 09-0040

Dear John,

John Haug wrote:
> Hi Suzuki-san -
> The proposed text was attached to my previous mail.  Let me know if you didn't get it for some reason and I'll send it to you again.

Oh, I'm sorry, I had overlooked in my previous post. I found it, I will check soon.

> Re: 09-0061, I have a to-do task to send you mail about that.  There was some discussion with Greg Hitchcock from SC 29 indicating the fix for that DR may be incorrect, that happened after the fix was accepted.  I'll send that to you soon.

Thanks. In recent SC29/WG11 font AHG mailing list, I asked the future direction how the difference between genuine latest Panose and Microsoft implementation should be cared; Greg Hitchcock commented he thinks ISO/IEC 14496-22 should use the definition in the OpenType spec on Microsoft website and http://panose.com/ should be referred as a guide how to compute the values in some cases.
I think it is right way for OpenType, and I've already drafted the regex for it and tested that Windows 7, Mac OS X (and Debian GNU/Linux) do not distribute violating it, in 2 years ago. I wish SC29/WG11 group will have a consensus about Greg's comment. Unfortunately, next SC29/WG11 meeting will be held in alsmost same time with SC34/WG4 Prague meeting, it would be difficult to get official comment before it.

> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp [mailto:mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:28 PM
> To: John Haug
> Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: Re: DR 09-0040
> 
> Dear John,
> 
> Thank you for taking care about DR 09-0040 (definition of complex script, etc), DR 09-0059 (symbol font). Could you send me the latest draft text to be inserted to the spec?
> 
> Also I will send the document to clarify the current status of DR 09-0061 (marked as closed, but the non-normative regex to validate ST_Panose is not fixed yet).
> 
> Regards,
> mpsuzuki
> 
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:26:19 +0000
> John Haug <johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi all -
>> Chris had been working on this DR and I picked up the discussions 
>> with people here.  From the history I was able to piece together, 
>> Chris had been working on details from a comments document Suzuki-san 
>> prepared in response to the prior version of the proposed solution 
>> from Chris.  I believe I have addressed the remaining items in Suzuki-san's document.
>> The notes I have indicate Suzuki-san agreed that DR 09-0040 also 
>> addresses DR 09-0059.
>>
>> It's entirely possible there is something I missed since this DR has 
>> been the subject of periodic ongoing discussion for quite some time, 
>> but this addresses the concerns I have been able to find.  Can we 
>> resume the review on this one?
>>
>> DR 09-0040:
>> https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2009/DR-09-0040.docx?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc&sc=documents DR 09-0059:
>> https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2009/DR-09-0059.
>> docx?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc&sc=documents
>>
>> John
>>