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

[Mark Davis ⌛]

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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090707/df81bef9/attachment.htm