Re: Run-time checking of fonts for Sinhala support

From: Harshula (
Date: Wed Sep 09 2009 - 10:19:07 CDT

  • Next message: Asmus Freytag: "Re: Run-time checking of fonts for Sinhala support"

    Hi Doug,

    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