From: Harshula (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Sep 03 2009 - 07:54:49 CDT
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
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
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?
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 : Thu Sep 03 2009 - 07:56:40 CDT