[apologies if this message generates a new thread - I've just now joined
the last-call discussion list]
With regard to draft-bray-unichars-10, in general I agree with John
Klensin's review. [1]
A subsequent message from Tim Bray [2] begins with an observation:
"People make new container formats." However, the phrase "container
format" does not appear in draft-bray-unichars-10, which might cause
confusion. More specificallly, I suspect it would be helpful if this
document included an applicability statement spelling out how container
formats differ from identifiers. The PRECIS specifications, which
followed the lead of the IDNA specifications in this regard, are
primarily intended to apply to strings that go in protocol slots, such
as addresses and identifiers. Although the i18n requirements for
container formats might differ from those for addresses and identifiers,
it's not clear (to me at least) what the differences are. Doing this
could also help justify why the proposed PRECIS profiles are needed.
Peter
[1]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/42X5TM_qkKIYI5zP2QOSovxPGj4/
[2]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/--Yi1dydC-1gYWH3_jpqmriFMik/
--
last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
