Reviewer: Asmus, Inc.
Review result: Ready with Nits
(1) The math of code points needs to be reviewed in section 4.3. It appears to
not account for a property change for U+111C9
(2) In Section 5, there's a sentence that seems to have a sense destroying edit:
The code point if being accepted might due ???? to implementations of
IDNA2008 based on older versions of Unicode than 11.0.0 be rejected.
(3) plural noun/verb mismatch in section 6
... new versions [...] is...
(4) Section 8: use of definite article. Drop "the" in front of Unicode Version
(also check other instances)
(5) Usefully, the discussion of SHARADA SANDHI MARK could point out whether it
treated the same or different from other SANDHI marks in related scripts. (From
just looking at the tables, and not the original UCD entries, it looks like
that they are all now treated the same, which would be beneficial under the
"least astonishment" principle - or whatever it's called).
This review based primarily on the diff, with just some look at the full text
to get the complete context for some items.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
