X3V1/95-010
                                                           X3L2/95-
Date: March 24, 1995
To:   X3L2
From: X3V1
Sub:  Comments on 17 January 1995 draft of the "Character/Glyph Model"
Re.:  X3L2/95-012

The 17 January 1995 draft of the "Character/Glyph Model" is in very good
shape, and we believe it is nearly ready for submission as a Proposed
Draft Technical Report.

We have the following comments, mostly editorial in nature.

Clause 1.2, item 3b:  add the phrase "and associated glyph properties":
"In glyph registries, to register additional glyphs with the same shapes
and associated glyph properties where the glyphs are solely distinguished
by association to different characters"

Clause 2:  move heading to the top of next page.

Clause 2, 4th paragraph, sentence 1:  add "that" following "essential":
"make it essential that they be managed ...".

Clause 4, "Recommendations":  Recommendations are not appropriate for a
technical report.  Consider retitling the clause "Guidelines for Glyph
Registration and Character Encoding" and rephrasing the individual points
if necessary.

Annex A:  No definition appears from ISO/IEC 10036, but it's probably
not necessary to remove the reference.

Annex B, sentence after definition:  delete first "that":
"This definition asserts: (1) that, ...".

Annex B, page 9, paragraph 2, sentence 2:  correct subject/verb
agreement: "... not only is there a large number ... but there are
also a number ...".

Annex C, clause 2, paragraph 2, sentences 2 and 4:  replace "changes"
by "variations", and (in sentence 2) replace the final "font" by
"glyphs":
   "... a wide set of variations is allowed in the design of the glyphs."
   "... ideographic glyphs are much more restrictive in the set of
   variations they will allow..."

Annex E, clause 2, item 1):  replace "this" by "a":  "unique to a
particular indexed font,"

Annex F, clause 4, paragraph 1, last (parenthetical) sentence:  Only
one coded character is cited, making this not an example of many-many
mapping.  Also, "would using" should be "would use".  Probably best
simply to omit this sentence as the examples already given are clear
and adequate.