DR 09-0040: WML/DML: Complex scripts

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

> Attached is a further-updated version of this with some text changes from Jesper.
>Please note that these were grammatical/editorial changes only - none
>of the meaning of the document is different.

I am afraid that I still do not understand.

First, I do not think that the proposed solution uses a "four-step
methodology".  To me, it is a two-step algorithm, where the 
first step classifies character contents while the second step 
derives font slots from classifications.

The first step "decide(s) the classification of the content, based on
its Unicode" AS WELL AS A HINT.  This classification contains Ascii,
hAnsi, and eastAsia.  What is "hint" here?  The value of the w:hint
attribute?  (BTW, <w:hint=”eastAsia”> in the second item is not XML.)

The second step decides the font slot from the classification computed 
in the first step.  (If I am not mistaken, this step never introduces
"latin".) 

The interaction between the first item and second item in the 
itemized list looks unclear.  Both use hint.  Are they talking 
about the same thing?

The third item mentions <w:cs/> and <w:rtl/>.  The original JP DR
mentioned more elements.  Are they not covered by the "four-step
methodology"?

Part 1, §17.3.2.2, “bCs (Complex Script Bold)”, p. 281
Part 1, §17.3.2.7, “cs (Use Complex Script Formatting on Run)”, p.289
Part 1, §17.3.2.17, “iCs (Complex Script Italics)”, p. 304 
Part 1, §17.3.2.20, “lang (Languages for Run Content)”, p. 304 
Part 1, §17.3.2.39, “szCs (Complex Script Font Size)”, p. 335 
Part 1, §21.1.2.3.1, “cs (Complex Script Font)”, p. 3596 
Part 1, §21.1.2.3.3, “ea (East Asian Font)”, p. 3605


Caroline wrote:

> I have no doubt that the "algorithm" addresses issues raised by this
> DR, but it's not clear to me that the precise question has been answered
> directly.  The DR mentions several specific sections that use the
> phrases "complex script characters" or "complex script contents [of a
> run]" with apparently different interpretations for the range of
> characters included.  Your proposed change to 17.3.2.26 certainly
> doesn't address that directly.

I agree.  I think that for each of the following  sub-clauses (mentioned
above), we should show how we use font slots for the grouping used 
in that sub-clause.

Cheers,
Makoto