From: Harshula (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 07 2009 - 11:12:17 CDT
On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 13:09 -0600, Doug Ewell wrote:
> "Harshula" <harshula at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > Taking these *realities* into account the operating system needs to
> > have an *intelligent* way to determine if a particular font is
> > sufficiently complete to be used for the UI. On some operating systems
> > there is already a layer/mechanism that is responsible for doing
> > exactly that.
> Note that people are not necessarily saying it's a bad idea for an
> operating system to do this type of runtime checking, if it can be done
> efficiently and effectively. Users obviously want text in their
> language to be displayed correctly.
I agree. How do we get there? There's probably more than one approach
that can be undertaken in parallel to achieve that goal.
> Where you are running into resistance on this list is where you argue
> that the checking MUST be done for compliance with a national standard,
> and where your posts blur the distinction between (a) whether you feel
> it is important for an OS to do the checking and (b) whether the
> standard actually requires it.
Firstly, I actually said "should", not "MUST": "Operating systems
should, at a minimum, check that a Sinhala font meets these requirements
before using it."
Secondly, I have been requesting feedback on the wording of a possible
amendment. Taking the feedback into account, the updated wording is:
'Operating systems shall, to the extent of their capabilities, only
recognise Level 1 compliant fonts as Sinhala fonts.'
The intent is that if the operating system already checks font
compliance then it must adhere to Level 1 compliance for the aspects it
can/does check. The other option is to change the "shall" to a "should".
i.e. change it to a recommendation.
What do you think?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 07 2009 - 11:15:29 CDT