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

[Patrik Fältström]

Fixed.

Note that this implies the "numbering" of the appendices (i.e. rules)  
will change to -05.

    Patrik

On 9 dec 2008, at 19.25, Mark Davis wrote:

> I find the alternative formulation (
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-04#appendix-A. 
> 1) much
> easier to read than the current "main" one (
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-04#section-3),  
> and
> would prefer replacing the contents of the main one with the  
> alternate one,
> then deleting the appendix.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 04:06, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>  
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>