[eb2mmrt] Re: DR 09-0040

[John Haug]

Sorry, I'll look into this today - I lost track of the discussion happening here.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: suzuki toshiya [mailto:mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:07 AM
To: MURATA Makoto
Cc: John Haug; e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: [eb2mmrt] Re: DR 09-0040

I have no objection to the latest draft which I added a note about upper surrogate, so I think it's ready to close.

Regards,
suzuki toshiya

MURATA Makoto wrote:
> Are we ready to close this DR tomorrow?
> 
> Regards,
> Makoto
> 
> 2012/3/14 John Haug <johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com>:
>> Good addition - thanks, Suzuki-san.
>>
>> Since it seems there are no further comments, I'll clean up the document and send it out as the final proposed resolution hopefully later this week.  There is some discussion here in the office about a similar question, so I'm going to see if that raises anything further that should be recommended in this DR resolution.
>>
>> John
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: suzuki toshiya [mailto:mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp]
>> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 2:50 AM
>> To: John Haug
>> Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
>> Subject: Re: DR 09-0040
>>
>> Dear John,
>>
>> Sorry for lated response. Here I attached a revised text.
>> I added a note to U+D835 to indicate that it is a leading surrogate for Mathematical Alphanumeric (U+1D400 - U+1D7FF).
>>
>> Listing it without note may cause a misunderstanding as if an exceptional handling of unpaired surrogate is needed, so some note is expected to prevent such misunderstanding.
>>
>> Regards,
>> suzuki toshiya, Hiroshima University, Japan
>>
>>
>> (2012/03/08 8:01), John Haug wrote:
>>> Just checking on any positive or negative comments on this, since I'm doing a pass over my open to-do items.  Given how much churn this has had in the past, I think we'd best have positive affirmations before we call it done.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Haug [mailto:johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:14 PM
>>> To: suzuki toshiya
>>> Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
>>> Subject: RE: DR 09-0040
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delay in getting this update done based on the Prague discussions.
>>>
>>> To sum up for the mailing list:
>>>   - Yes, should be Big5
>>>   - I'm told Latin Extended Additional is correct as given
>>>   - Typeface names are updated
>>>
>>> Here is the updated draft.  I also did a little tidying up on the Visio diagram to reduce some crossed lines; hopefully slightly easier to read.  See what you all think.
>>>
>>> If there are no further questions or comments, I think this can be 
>>> moved to closed based on the discussion in Prague, or last call for 
>>> the next teleconference.  Rex, for the DR log, it may be easier to 
>>> embed the file rather than paste everything in.  Your call.  (Don't 
>>> forget to accept all changes, or I can send you a copy with 
>>> everything
>>> accepted.)
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: suzuki toshiya [mailto:mpsuzuki at hiroshima-u.ac.jp]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 11:48 PM
>>> To: John Haug
>>> Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
>>> Subject: Re: DR 09-0040
>>>
>>> Dear John,
>>>
>>> Here is my comment to the latest draft of DR 09-0040.
>>>
>>> The points I'm afraid of a mistake are:
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> * In Unicode->fontSlot table, the descriptions for Latin Extended A, B, IPA Extensions includes an unknown keyword, "Chinese5" for a charset in the font.
>>> Considering the next keyword is "GB2312", "Chinese5"
>>> would be a mistake of "Big5" (IANA registered name).
>>>
>>> * In Unicode->fontSlot table, Latin Extended A, B, IPA Extensions includes the consideration of the font charset (checking if the font is designed for Simplified or Traditional Chinese), but Latin Extended Additional does not include.
>>> Please check it is designed so, or a mistake in the documentation.
>>> I think, the checking of Chinese font (via lang, via theme, font charset) is designed to render PinYin alphabets by Chinese fonts, so the handling of Latin Extended Additional might have been synchronized to Latin Extended A, B, IPA Extensions.
>>>
>>> The point I propose some improvements is:
>>> -----------------------------------------
>>> * In DrawingML, the typeface familynames in samples are "Sample Font", although the examples in WordprocessingML used concrete names, like, Courier New, Times New Roman, Arial MS Unicode, etc. Thus, I propose to change the names to the fonts similar:
>>> "Times New Roman" for Arabic (in complex script font), "MingLiU" or "SimSun" for Chinese (in east asian font), "Wingdings 2" for Symbol font.
>>>
>>> Diagram update:
>>> ---------------
>>> I attached updated diagram for font slot selection in WordprocessingML, it includes the consideration of the theme and the charset in eastAsian slot.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> suzuki toshiya, Hiroshima University, Japan
>>>
>>> John Haug wrote (2012/01/20 6:26):
>>>> Hi all -
>>>> Chris had been working on this DR and I picked up the discussions with people here.  From the history I was able to piece together, Chris had been working on details from a comments document Suzuki-san prepared in response to the prior version of the proposed solution from Chris.  I believe I have addressed the remaining items in Suzuki-san's document.  The notes I have indicate Suzuki-san agreed that DR 09-0040 also addresses DR 09-0059.
>>>>
>>>> It's entirely possible there is something I missed since this DR has been the subject of periodic ongoing discussion for quite some time, but this addresses the concerns I have been able to find.  Can we resume the review on this one?
>>>>
>>>> DR 09-0040:
>>>> https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2009/DR-09-0
>>>> 04
>>>> 0 .docx?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc&sc=documents
>>>> DR 09-0059:
>>>> https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx/Public%20Documents/2009/DR-09-0
>>>> 05
>>>> 9 .docx?cid=c8ba0861dc5e4adc&sc=documents
>>>>
>>>> John
>>
> 
> 
>