tables document [Re: IDNA comments]
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Sat Jul 12 16:35:50 CEST 2008
--On Saturday, 12 July, 2008 09:12 +0200 Patrik Fältström
<patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:
>> 8. Sort the following by value instead of code point, for
>> clarity. Ideally each value would be in its own subsection:
>> PVALID, CONTEXTO,...
>> 002D; CONTEXTO # HYPHEN-MINUS
>> 3007; PVALID # IDEOGRAPHIC NUMBER ZERO
>> 303B; CONTEXTO # VERTICAL IDEOGRAPHIC ITERATION MARK
>> 30FB; CONTEXTO # KATAKANA MIDDLE DOT
> Hmm...what do people think here? I can see reasons to have the
> codepoints (in the same script) "close" to each other (as it
> is now), while still of course understand this suggestion.
FWIW, I strongly favor a script-grouping order or a code point
sequence order (which fortunately are much the same thing).
Those orders in a document facilitate checking and understanding
by people who are expert in the substantive issues associated
with only a subset of Unicode. If I were writing code, I might
well organize things differently, but this is not the code.
> Should also the appendix be sorted in a different way (add an
> Appendix B in addition to existing Appendix A)?
I'd prefer to get the document structure question firmly
resolved before thinking about that. If we are going to combine
Tables with Protocol, we would be talking about a huge document.
Because I believe that huge documents are problematic
independent of their content, that would be enough reason to
oppose an appendix with a different sorting.
More information about the Idna-update