- From: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:41:07 +0000
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "public-svgopentype@w3.org" <public-svgopentype@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Since the last message below, I’ve received notes from folks in two companies who assumed https://www.w3.org/2013/10/SVG_in_OpenType/ was the latest-and-greatest spec, despite the note in the Abstract that it is a proposal. It doesn’t help that it is the top hit in internet searches for “OpenType SVG”, in my informal experiments. I think the effort would benefit from a clear deprecation notice on this document along with links to http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/svg.htm http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/cpal.htm as was done with some other out-of-date documents. Do folks agree? If so, who would be able to do that? Thanks, Sairus -----Original Message----- From: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com> Date: Friday, February 26, 2016 at 2:37 PM To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "public-svgopentype@w3.org" <public-svgopentype@w3.org> Subject: Re: Various out-of-date SVG-in-OT specs/drafts >Chris, > >> Done, I added a post with those links and some explanation. > >Thank you very much! > >Just today I received another question from someone perusing >https://www.w3.org/2013/10/SVG_in_OpenType/, asking about why var(color0) >was used, as opposed to var(--color0) in the published OFF/OT specs. > >It would be good if a clear deprecation notice were added to the document >linked to above, when you can find out how to do that. > >Best, > >Sairus > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> >Organization: W3C >Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 9:15 AM >To: Sairus Patel <sppatel@adobe.com>, "public-svgopentype@w3.org" ><public-svgopentype@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> >Subject: Re: Various out-of-date SVG-in-OT specs/drafts > >>Hello Sairus, >> >>Wednesday, January 20, 2016, 10:25:31 PM, you wrote: >> >>> 2. Chris, others, >> >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/community/svgopentype/ points to >>> https://www.w3.org/2013/10/SVG_in_OpenType/ as the final report of >>> the community group, which is correct. However, OT/OFF has changed >>> things in the standardization process. It would be good to include >>> the above two opentype links on >>> https://www.w3.org/community/svgopentype/ as well, >> >>Done, I added a post with those links and some explanation. >> >> https://www.w3.org/community/svgopentype/ >> >>> and perhaps on https://www.w3.org/2013/10/SVG_in_OpenType/ as well. >>> However, other suggestions are welcome as well. >> >>I want to add a deprecation notice to that, and am finding out how it >>can be done (because the report is said to be final. On the other >>hand, we add deprecation notices to other specs). >> >> >>-- >>Best regards, >> Chris Lilley >> Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain >> >
Received on Thursday, 23 June 2016 18:41:39 UTC