Change requests to the table document -- pass them to me please!

[Patrik Fältström]

I am doing this now, as well as comparing Unicode 5.1 and 5.2. A new  
draft will be released shortly.

I can say that the introduction of 5.2 give _zero_ changes needed to  
the exclusion lists. I "just" run my software on the 5.2 versions of  
the Unicode data.

Mark, others, can you please verify this?

    Patrik

On 8 jul 2009, at 06.14, Mark Davis ⌛ wrote:

> I sent a message indicating some problems back in November.  In  
> March I
> followed up with the message below. I went back to see why Patrik  
> hadn't
> responded, and it looked like he was waiting for someone else to  
> look at
> what he did and didn't cover in his revision.
>
> Well, it turns out that none of the recommended changes were  
> incorporated.
> While it is certainly possible that all of them were problematic,  
> there was
> no response on why they were rejected. I'm guessing that in the end,  
> they
> were just overlooked. I understand that Harald disagrees with some  
> of them;
> we should discuss the issues.
>
> Patrik, could you now, please, look over
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2008-November/003021.html 
> ,
> and respond for each item as to either
>
>   1. you think the change should be made, or
>   2. you think it shouldn't and why not.
>
> The context rules are still extremely rough-draft, and have gotten  
> no review
> from this group. Yet they form a fundamental part of validity, and  
> need to
> have the same level of review as the rest. If we're going to every  
> ship this
> thing, we need to wrap up all the loose ends, and this is one of them.
>
> Mark
>
>
> Mark Davis wrote:
>>
>>> You didn't look back far enough, for example:
>>> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2008-November/003021.html
>>>
>>> To that message I got no response from you, agreement or  
>>> disagreement. As
>>> I said in the meeting, I've also heard from others that they were  
>>> waiting on
>>> some of the major issues to settle before speaking up on the  
>>> contextissues. I think we made enough progress in the meeting that  
>>> now is probably
>>> the time for that.
>>>
>> Note that I disagree with several of the points from that note (not  
>> the
>> need to be precise, but I like functions like Previous() much  
>> better than
>> pseudovariables like P, and I think the initial ruleset needs to  
>> stay in the
>> document after publication).
>
>
> What I'd really like to see is a formulation that was even closer to  
> what
> people would actually used
>
>>
>>
>> I missed replying to your comments in November, but see that the  
>> relevant
>> sections were revised in December, so my comments would probably  
>> have been
>> moot anyway.
>
>
> I didn't get any reply from Patrik, so I don't know what changes he  
> made,
> whether any were in response to my document, which suggestions he
> incorporated, which he didn't; and any reasoning connected with any of
> those.
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> 2009/3/25 Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>
>
>>
>> On 25 mar 2009, at 12.59, Mark Davis wrote:
>>
>> I didn't get any reply from Patrik, so I don't know what changes he  
>> made,
>>> whether any were in response to my document, which suggestions he
>>> incorporated, which he didn't; and any reasoning connected with  
>>> any of
>>> those.
>>>
>>
>> The changes I did between 04 and 05 can be viewed here:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/dbgzm6
>>
>> But as I do not remember whether I looked at your email or not, I  
>> can not
>> say what parts I explicitly changed and not.
>>
>>  Patrik
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090712/c5b77e3d/attachment.pgp