tables document [Re: IDNA comments]
Patrik Fältström
patrik at frobbit.se
Mon Jul 28 12:12:01 CEST 2008
On 14 jul 2008, at 20.57, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>>> 3. "It should be suitable for newer revisions of Unicode, as long
>>> as the
>>> Unicode properties on which it is based remain stable."
>>> Replace by
>>> "This is suitable for any newer versions of Unicod as well.
> ^^^^^^
> Typo in Mark's input that made it into table-02.txt.
Fixed
>> Thanks. I will though probably in the last sentence not say "...will
>> be..." but instead "...can be..." as my view is that at the point in
>> time where such an unfortunate incompatibility is detected, this
>> document has to be updated. At that update one can choose to either
>> add the codepoint to 2.2.3 or not (in reality, choose to add to 2.2.3
>> and update the document or not update the document but accept the
>> incompatibility).
>>
>> Ok with people?
>
> And yes, I'm fine with that suggestion, too.
Ok.
>>> 7. "In many cases aliases are used in the data in the Unicode
>>> Standard.
>>> This document uses both the alias and the spelled out terms (for
>>> example
>>> alias Ll for the General Category Lowercase_Letter)."
>>> Replace with:
>>> "Unicode property names and property value names may have short
>>> abbreviations, such as gc for the General_Category property, and
>>> Ll for the
>>> Lowercase_Letter property value of that property."
>>
>> Is it only property names and property values that have short forms?
>
> In general, yes. What Mark is referring to are the short forms
> specified in PropertyAliases.txt (for property names) and
> PropertyValueAliases.txt (for property value names).
Ok.
>>> 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.
>
> I agree that the list isn't long enough to bother reorganizing
> it by category here.
Ok.
>> Should also the appendix be sorted in a different way (add an
>> Appendix
>> B in addition to existing Appendix A)?
>
> No. The least contentious (and least voluminous) way forward is
> just to leave the Appendix A as it is.
Ok.
>>> 13. "If needed, IANA should (with the help of an appointed expert)
>>> suggest updates of this RFC where BackwardCompatible (Section
>>> 2.2.3) is
>>> updated, a set that is at
>>> release of this document is empty."
>>> This isn't going to work. I suggest that the backwards compatible
>>> character list, the exceptions list, and the context rules all be
>>> in a
>>> single document published by IANA, and controlled by the group
>>> discussed in
>>> rationale.
>>
>> Ok.
>
> I don't see that Mark's concern has actually been addressed
> yet on this point (Section 5. IANA Considerations). Rather
> than IANA suggesting updates to the RFC, it seems to me
> that it would be cleaner if the RFC specified that the
> BackwardCompatible list was maintained by IANA along with
> its listing of the derived property for each version
> of Unicode. The need to add anything to the BackwardCompatible
> list will be apparent when the derivation is attempted for
> each new version, if anything were to change that required
> its invocation. It is much quicker and cleaner if that
> exception list were then generated and maintained by
> the same process involved in generating the derived property
> list(s), rather than requiring kicking off a document
> revision process to get the RFC updated.
This is an action point (P5).
> After all, isn't one of the main points here to construct
> the RFC so that it doesn't have to be updated with future
> revisions of Unicode?
Yes.
What people seems to like is the non-normative list in the draft, and
ask that to be updated when Unicode releases new versions. And the
question is how/who/when is doing this.
I will have new text in -03 that I hope helps.
> P.S. In general, I'm quite pleased with the progress this
> document has made. I find it much simpler and clearer
> now.
Thanks!
Patrik
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list