I find the alternative formulation (<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-04#appendix-A.1">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-04#appendix-A.1</a>) much easier to read than the current "main" one (<a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-04#section-3">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-04#section-3</a>), and would prefer replacing the contents of the main one with the alternate one, then deleting the appendix.<br>
<br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 04:06, Patrik Fältström <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:patrik@frobbit.se">patrik@frobbit.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Does people think the "alternative property calculation" is "better"<br>
than the original one, so that that should be used in the document<br>
itself (i.e. 3.1)?<br>
<br>
I agree it should not be in Appendix A.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Patrik<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
On 6 dec 2008, at 02.44, Kenneth Whistler wrote:<br>
<br>
> Patrik, et al.,<br>
><br>
> On to the next problem:<br>
><br>
> Problem #3: Appendix A.1 out of place.<br>
><br>
> Appendix A.1 "Alternative property calculation" is<br>
> definitely out of place in the document.<br>
><br>
> Appendix A is the "Contextual Rules Registry"<br>
> section, and Appendices A.2, A.3, etc., are all specifications<br>
> of particular context rules involving particular<br>
> code points, using a parallel structure.<br>
> Appendix A.1 has nothing to do with that, but instead<br>
> is a restatement of the sequential rules of<br>
> Section 3 as a (sequentially-evaluated) single<br>
> expression.<br>
><br>
> The correct place for this in the document would be in<br>
> a Section 3.1, directly after the statement of the rules<br>
> in Section 3, removing it from the confusing context<br>
> it is in now in Appendix A.<br>
><br>
> If the thinking was that having an alternative property<br>
> calculation needs to be considered just an informative<br>
> note and thus belongs in an appendix, then Appendix A<br>
> is certainly the wrong place, because the content<br>
> of Appendix A is clearly going to be considered highly<br>
> normative by all implementers of the protocol.<br>
><br>
> So my suggestion would be to move it to a Section 3.1,<br>
> instead, and apply whatever language there that you<br>
> deem necessary to make it clear that it is an<br>
> informative restatement of how to do the derivation.<br>
><br>
> --Ken<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Idna-update mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Idna-update mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>