Re: Run-time checking of fonts for Sinhala support

From: Roozbeh Pournader (roozbeh@htpassport.com)
Date: Mon Aug 31 2009 - 14:29:37 CDT

  • Next message: karl williamson: "TR18 question"

    Dear Harshula,

    Please respect my lack of interest in continuing this discussion with
    you. I am very interested in the subject matter, but I do not consider
    this specific thread to be worth the time I spend on it.

    Roozbeh

    On Mon, 2009-08-31 at 01:50 +1000, Harshula wrote:
    > Hi Roozbeh,
    >
    > On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 11:47 -0700, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
    > > On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 02:01 +1000, Harshula wrote:
    > > > Please elaborate if you actually found examples of contradictions. I
    > > > have CC'd those involved in the preparation of the documents.
    > >
    > > That's already on my to-do list. I am already in contact with Gihan
    > > Dias.
    >
    > Great, I'll ask Gihan about the contradictions you say you found.
    >
    > > > > "'Computer systems preloaded with Sinhala' claiming to conform to SLS
    > > > > 1134:2004 should include at least one Sinhala font, preferably
    > > > > conforming to SLS 1134:2004 Level-1 font requirements."
    > > >
    > > > 1) You say "should include at least"? Surely you mean "shall include at
    > > > least".
    > >
    > > I understand. The term "shall" in SLS 1134 probably means "MUST", not
    > > "SHOULD".
    >
    > I'm not sure how familiar you are with specification documents, perhaps
    > you should read: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
    >
    > > > 2) You say "preferably conforming to"? Surely you mean "confirming to".
    > >
    > > I don't understand this one.
    >
    > "preferably" implies that it is recommended but optional.
    >
    > > > 4.3 Computer Systems preloaded with Sinhala
    > > > When a vendor provides the entire computer system preloaded
    > > > with Sinhala, the user shall be able to work with Sinhala Unicode,
    > > > without installing any third party component in the computer
    > > > system. At a minimum the following components shall be provided
    > > > with the computer system:
    > > > a) Sinhala Display and printer driver
    > > > b) Sinhala Keyboard and keyboard driver
    > > > c) One Sinhala font
    > > >
    > > > This system shall support Unicode-aware applications running in
    > > > Sinhala. The *three components* listed above *shall* have the
    > > > *specifications described under section 4.1.and 4.2.*
    >
    > Notice how it is *mandatory* to have at least one Sinhala font that is
    > Level 1 compliant. It is not optional.
    >
    > > It does *not* say that the 'computer system' should check the other
    > > Sinhala fonts later installed to see if they have the specifications
    > > described in the earlier sections.
    >
    > I agree you have successfully exploited a loophole in section 4.3. The
    > *intent* of section 4.3 is to have at least one Level 1 compliant
    > Sinhala font that is *used* by the UI. Thus ensuring that a correct and
    > standardised UI is presented to the user.
    >
    > It is pointless having a Level 1 compliant Sinhala font sitting *unused*
    > on the filesystem, whilst the operating system choses a random
    > non-compliant font that will present an incorrect and non-standard UI to
    > the user. Therefore, the operating system needs to select a Level 1
    > compliant font by default to ensure a correct and standardised UI.
    >
    > Hence my original question:
    >
    > > > So, if SLS1134:Part2
    > > > stated something like 'Operating systems shall only recognise Level 1
    > > > compliant fonts as Sinhala fonts.', would that be sufficiently explicit
    > > > in your mind?
    > >
    > > No.
    >
    > So, could you please suggest a phrase, that you are happy with, that
    > would close the loophole?
    >
    > cya,
    > #
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 31 2009 - 14:35:04 CDT