From: Harshula (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 09 2009 - 10:19:07 CDT
On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 11:08 -0600, Doug Ewell wrote:
> "Harshula" <harshula at gmail dot com> wrote:
> Standardization may or may not be the answer here. Users of Sinhala
> might simply reject a system that doesn't display Sinhala correctly out
> of the box. Vendors that ship a so-called "Sinhala-ready" system that
> includes a compliant font, but doesn't use it, might pay dearly in terms
> of public derision and lost sales.
We wish! The *reality* is that users will criticise Unicode Sinhala
encoding as being defective and blame the organisations and individuals
involved with the standard.
> > 'Operating systems shall, to the extent of their capabilities, only
> > recognise Level 1 compliant fonts as Sinhala fonts.'
> It might be better to state explicitly that fonts compliant to Level 1
> *or above* are recognized, if that's what you mean, even though Levels 2
> and 3 are defined elsewhere as supersets of lower levels. I think
> Roozbeh may have mentioned this already.
No, he did not. Thanks, I will incorporate that change. The other option
is to change the "shall" to a "should". i.e. change it to a
recommendation. Do you have any preference/comments on that?
> I'm actually not seeing any place where the standard requires the OS to
> check font compliance, only a stipulation that "One Sinhala font" [or
> presumably more] "shall be provided with the computer system."
> Providing is not checking. I understand that you are proposing to amend
> the standard, but you have to start with what the standard says;
> otherwise your statement about checking font compliance at all is itself
> part of your proposal.
When I was asked to review this back in 2006, I did not pick up on
Section 4.3 not explicitly referring to OS font selection. I was
concentrating on 4.2. Now we need to have another look at 4.3 and all
your feedback is appreciated.
> However, as a side note, I have to say I'm a bit skeptical of a
> standardization review process that includes, in the section "Visibility
> of Symbols," the requirement "The keyboard shall be comfortable to the
> user." (Where does an ergonomic requirement fit here? How is
> "comfortable" defined? What does this have to do with engraving symbols
> on keytops?)
I'll convey that point. If that's the only problematic text you found, I
think we are doing well. ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 09 2009 - 10:24:14 CDT