Re: Lost in translation: font policy ambiguous regarding localization groups

[Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh gmail com>]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas mailhot gmail com> wrote:
> Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009 à 01:23 -0800, Roozbeh Pournader a écrit :
>> and everybody just calls ASCII?
>
> Everybody just calls ASCII iso-8859-1 or even plain text in any
> encoding. ASCII is meaningless as soon as you put everybody in the
> equation.

You lost me there. Are you saying that people are usually careless
about using character set names, or are you saying the term "ASCII" is
ambiguous?

> Note that the guidelines says SHOULD, not MUST so 100% compliance is not
> expected (even though we've been slacking IMHO)

Oh of course. But SHOULD means:

"SHOULD   This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course." [RFC 2119]

So, I need to understand the full implications before I choose not to do it ;-)

> Well, sure, if you feel strongly about it just do it. I'll welcome
> someone else working on enhancing our fonts packaging guidelines for
> once :)

OK, I will think about it and see what makes sense. I will probably
need to write a script or two to investigate the fonts we have with
the language coverage.

> IMHO our fonts-related comps groups have become too big to be
> user-friendly and effective, but this opinion does not seem to be shared
> by a lot of people so I had pushed reworking our comps rules to some
> other future release.

That's another story now...

Roozbeh