idnabis-tables-04 problem #3: Appendix A.1 out of place

[Patrik Fältström]

Does people think the "alternative property calculation" is "better"  
than the original one, so that that should be used in the document  
itself (i.e. 3.1)?

I agree it should not be in Appendix A.

    Patrik

On 6 dec 2008, at 02.44, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

> Patrik, et al.,
>
> On to the next problem:
>
> Problem #3: Appendix A.1 out of place.
>
> Appendix A.1 "Alternative property calculation" is
> definitely out of place in the document.
>
> Appendix A is the "Contextual Rules Registry"
> section, and Appendices A.2, A.3, etc., are all specifications
> of particular context rules involving particular
> code points, using a parallel structure.
> Appendix A.1 has nothing to do with that, but instead
> is a restatement of the sequential rules of
> Section 3 as a (sequentially-evaluated) single
> expression.
>
> The correct place for this in the document would be in
> a Section 3.1, directly after the statement of the rules
> in Section 3, removing it from the confusing context
> it is in now in Appendix A.
>
> If the thinking was that having an alternative property
> calculation needs to be considered just an informative
> note and thus belongs in an appendix, then Appendix A
> is certainly the wrong place, because the content
> of Appendix A is clearly going to be considered highly
> normative by all implementers of the protocol.
>
> So my suggestion would be to move it to a Section 3.1,
> instead, and apply whatever language there that you
> deem necessary to make it clear that it is an
> informative restatement of how to do the derivation.
>
> --Ken
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>