From: Roozbeh Pournader (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Aug 31 2009 - 14:29:37 CDT
Please respect my lack of interest in continuing this discussion with
you. I am very interested in the subject matter, but I do not consider
this specific thread to be worth the time I spend on it.
On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 01:50 +1000, Harshula wrote:
> Hi Roozbeh,
> On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 11:47 -0700, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 02:01 +1000, Harshula wrote:
> > > Please elaborate if you actually found examples of contradictions. I
> > > have CC'd those involved in the preparation of the documents.
> > That's already on my to-do list. I am already in contact with Gihan
> > Dias.
> Great, I'll ask Gihan about the contradictions you say you found.
> > > > "'Computer systems preloaded with Sinhala' claiming to conform to SLS
> > > > 1134:2004 should include at least one Sinhala font, preferably
> > > > conforming to SLS 1134:2004 Level-1 font requirements."
> > >
> > > 1) You say "should include at least"? Surely you mean "shall include at
> > > least".
> > I understand. The term "shall" in SLS 1134 probably means "MUST", not
> > "SHOULD".
> I'm not sure how familiar you are with specification documents, perhaps
> you should read: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
> > > 2) You say "preferably conforming to"? Surely you mean "confirming to".
> > I don't understand this one.
> "preferably" implies that it is recommended but optional.
> > > 4.3 Computer Systems preloaded with Sinhala
> > > When a vendor provides the entire computer system preloaded
> > > with Sinhala, the user shall be able to work with Sinhala Unicode,
> > > without installing any third party component in the computer
> > > system. At a minimum the following components shall be provided
> > > with the computer system:
> > > a) Sinhala Display and printer driver
> > > b) Sinhala Keyboard and keyboard driver
> > > c) One Sinhala font
> > >
> > > This system shall support Unicode-aware applications running in
> > > Sinhala. The *three components* listed above *shall* have the
> > > *specifications described under section 4.1.and 4.2.*
> Notice how it is *mandatory* to have at least one Sinhala font that is
> Level 1 compliant. It is not optional.
> > It does *not* say that the 'computer system' should check the other
> > Sinhala fonts later installed to see if they have the specifications
> > described in the earlier sections.
> I agree you have successfully exploited a loophole in section 4.3. The
> *intent* of section 4.3 is to have at least one Level 1 compliant
> Sinhala font that is *used* by the UI. Thus ensuring that a correct and
> standardised UI is presented to the user.
> It is pointless having a Level 1 compliant Sinhala font sitting *unused*
> on the filesystem, whilst the operating system choses a random
> non-compliant font that will present an incorrect and non-standard UI to
> the user. Therefore, the operating system needs to select a Level 1
> compliant font by default to ensure a correct and standardised UI.
> Hence my original question:
> > > So, if SLS1134:Part2
> > > stated something like 'Operating systems shall only recognise Level 1
> > > compliant fonts as Sinhala fonts.', would that be sufficiently explicit
> > > in your mind?
> > No.
> So, could you please suggest a phrase, that you are happy with, that
> would close the loophole?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 31 2009 - 14:35:04 CDT