annex | A simple browser for extensions.gnome.org | Theme library

First time I write a question on stackoverflow, after more than 5 years using it ! Hopefully I did not miss the answer in another post and that I'll meet the standards expected to ask a question:

I am trying to dynamically move text in a MS-word document based on a user input, using Headings to find what to move and where to move it.

For the sake example let's say my document is organized like this:

Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Annex 1

With "Section 1", "Section 2", "Section 3" and "Annex" being defined as Headings 1 style.

In each Sections (and annex) you have a mixed batch of text, tables, pictures, etc.

Let's assume users get asked the following question through VBA (triggered either via a button click event or document open event, does not matter - this I know how to do). Depending on their answer, I would like to either

a) do nothing

b) do the following actions:

• select the entire "Section 1", including Heading and all the text, figures, tables, etc, in it (in other words - until "Section 2" starts)

• move it between Section 3 and Annex 1 so that the document structure now looks like this: Section 2 Section 3 Section 1 Annex 1

...

I've been puzzling over Technical Standard 51's Annex C and Annex 29 on Unicode Text Segmentation as well as the Unicode Grapheme Break Test data file and it appears that the definition of a cluster in Annex 29 does not cover the sequence tag_base tag_spec+ tag_end which means that characters built as Emoji tag sequences like 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 will be treated as 7 graphemes by the Annex 29 algorithm rather than a single grapheme as one would expect.

I understand that there is flexibility in precisely which sequences are rendered by an implementation, but it seems like the correct behavior would be to treat all instances of syntactically valid Emoji tag sequences as single graphemes for cluster analysis rather than to break up characters built from tag sequences into multiple graphemes.

Edited to add:

1. Is this an oversight in annex 29 on text segmentation?
2. Should an implementation of text segmentation treat a tag sequence like 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 as a single grapheme or as seven graphemes?

...

I'm following up on a previous question:

I have the following schema:

...

I trying to get the RSA signature as described in Annex A2.1 of EMV book 2. As I understand it was described in ISO9796-2 as scheme 1, option 1. So, the resulting signature should contain a Header equal to '6A' and a Trailer equal to 'BC'.

The algorithms ALG_RSA_SHA_ISO9796 and ALG_RSA_SHA_ISO9796_MR are the only suitable that I could find. But they acting like scheme 1, option 2 with a Trailer equal to '33cc'

Is it possible to get a signature with Trailer = 'BC'?

Javacard example code:

...

I've a table with the below rows.

id clause_no 1 5.8 2 5.9 3 5.1.1 4 5.10.2 5 5.1 6 5.10.2 7 5.4.3.2 8 5.40.3.2 9 5.6.3.2 10 5.40.3.3 11 K.8 12 L.26 13 K.3.2 14 Annex F

I'd like to display it in the below format:

id clause_no 5 5.1 3 5.1.1 7 5.4.3.2 9 5.6.3.2 1 5.8 2 5.9 4 5.10.2 6 5.10.2 8 5.40.3.2 10 5.40.3.3 14 Annex F 13 K.3.2 11 K.8 12 L.26

I tried the order by, but it's not working as expected. PFB the db-fiddle link:

db-fiddle

...

I have been recently struggling to understand the meaning of a DIR file in Emv book 1. I dig a lit bit and I find that my perspective of a folder got me to the wrong path. For me a 'Directory' is equal to a 'folder' that contains only other elements. So when I was going through Emv specifications they said after selecting a DDF or an ADF it sends back the FCI. So I was confused as I was seeing DDF and ADF just as folders so where they store FCI's data . I get more confused when I read "Directories are optional within an ICC".

Can someone please explain to me what is a Directory in ICC and what is the difference between a DDF and its related DIR A that exists in all examples of the section : "Annex C Examples of Directory Structures" of emv book 1 Thank you.

emv specifications

...

I couldn't find any sources speaking about the next point in specification (let it be GlobalDeclarationInstantiation):

ii. If replacing the FunctionDeclaration f with a VariableStatement that has F as a BindingIdentifier would not produce any Early Errors for script, then

I don't understand this step, what would it be demonstrating this error?

I am trying to figure out this step in annex. So if we don't do replacements FunctionDeclartion with the VariableStatement, we won't get the error. Conversily we will get the error, if we do this replacements. What is example of it then?

...

Below is a script that I am running that searches for items stored in an annex location based on the value in column 2 on sheet LX03SB. We currently have 10 annex locations so I added a search for each one, but as we expand this is becoming more and more tedious. Is there a way to modify the valueToWatch function to find any value that starts with Annex instead of needed Annex01, Annex02, etc.

...

Sample code (t0.c):

...