From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 07 2009 - 22:06:16 CDT
Chris Fynn <cfynn at gmx dot net> wrote:
> IMO this could rapidly get very complex and a nightmare to maintain.
> In fact I fear *requirements* like this could turn out to be be a big
> disincentive for developers to add support for complex scripts - or at
> least further delay them adding such support.
My thoughts as well. There will always be some vendors, particularly
those based in Sinhala-speaking areas, that will make the effort to
adhere to the standard; but the higher the bar is set, the less likely
it is that the major international vendors will bother trying to clear
> What happens if my OS rejects a Sinhala font that actually works -
> can the font developer try and claim compensation from me when his
> customers demand their money back and the fault turns out to be my
> less than perfect run time checking not his font?
Somehow I am reminded of the passage in GB 18030-2000 in which a Chinese
government bureau would monitor new software products marketed in China
for compliance, and "[i]f new product is found to be inconsistent with
new standard, the related IT company will be punished". Software sold
to ordinary civilians for ordinary uses should not evoke fears of 3 a.m.
knocks on the front door.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 07 2009 - 22:09:01 CDT