RE: Various out-of-date SVG-in-OT specs/drafts

I agree, the original proposal shouldn’t be used as a spec, a lot of things changed since then. Making it clear that that document has no official standing and shouldn’t be used as a reference would be beneficial for users.

Thank you,
Vlad


-----Original Message-----
From: Sairus Patel [mailto:sppatel@adobe.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:41 PM
To: Chris Lilley; public-svgopentype@w3.org; Cameron McCormack
Subject: Re: Various out-of-date SVG-in-OT specs/drafts

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as was done with some other out-of-date documents.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Subject: Re: Various out-of-date SVG-in-OT specs/drafts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Subject: Re: Various out-of-date SVG-in-OT specs/drafts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 20:04:34 UTC