Re: Comments on Charmod PR publications

Hello Bjoern,

This is again a personal reply.

At 00:48 05/02/08, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
 >
 >* Martin Duerst wrote:
 >>The explanatory language indeed still mentions "iso-8859-1". This is
 >>because the most frequent abuse of this kind is (or hopefully, was)
 >>to create a font where the glyphs used to render the characters in
 >>the high half of iso-8859-1 were replaced by glyphs from another
 >>script (e.g. Cyrillic or Thai), and a corresponding Web page was
 >>labeled as being in iso-8859-1 with an instruction for the reader
 >>to install the specil font.
 >
 >You seem to imply that "iso-8859-1" is a coded character set. I do not
 >think Charmod should use "iso-8859-1" to mean anything but a character
 >encoding scheme--the term is introduced as a mapping of code points to
 >bytes and font technology is not typically based on character encoding
 >schems; I thus stand by my objection to this text as it confuses the
 >issue.

The sentence in question currently reads:
"This prohibits the construction of fonts that misuse e.g. iso-8859-1 to
represent different scripts, characters, or symbols than what is actually
encoded in iso-8859-1."

It may "seem to imply" that iso-8859-1 is a coded character set, but
it doesn't actually say so. If you have a proposal of how to change
the text to avoid such an implication without making this more
complicated for the average reader, I think the WG might be inclined
to put it in. For example, what about

"This prohibits the construction of fonts that allow the misuse of e.g.
iso-8859-1 to represent different scripts, characters, or symbols than
what is actually encoded in iso-8859-1."

Any other suggestions appreciated.

Regards,    Martin.

Received on Tuesday, 8 February 2005 12:41:29 UTC