The IESG wrote:
> <draft-newman-i18n-comparator-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard
Unsorted nits / questions / observations:
| other-uri = absoluteURI
other-uri = <absolute-URI> ; see STD 66 ch. 4.3
---
4.3.2 substring
How about adding (( A in B ) & ( B in A )) <=> ( A = B ) ?
And 'transitive' (( A in B ) & ( B in C )) => ( A in C ) ?
You have the former in prose: "A string is a substring of
itself", good enough, but maybe you need also the latter.
4.3.3 "trichotomous", maybe add "(one of smaller, equal, or
greater)" as explanation.
---
| In general, collations SHOULD NOT return "0" unless the two
| strings are identical.
That deserves its own paragraph with an example where it's
not the case, e.g. 9.1.1: leading zeros for i;ascii-numeric
---
| 4.5. Multi-Value Attributes
What is this, comparing a set of strings ( a1, a2, ..., ai )
with another set ( b1, b2, ..., bn ) maybe ? And what's an
"ordinal character string", do you just mean "smallest" when
you say "ordinal smallest" ?
---
In 4.1 you say "ascii;numeric", in 5.6 "i;ascii-numeric", is
that as it should be ?
---
| <!DOCTYPE rfc SYSTEM 'collationreg.dtd'>
| <collation rfc="YYYY" scope="i18n" intendedUse="common">
[...]
s/DOCTYPE rfc/DOCTYPE collation/ ?
---
| The <name> element gives the precise name of the comparator.
Is "comparator" a shorthand for "IANA registered collation" ?
---
[submitter] "is optional if the <owner> element contains an
email address." Is it In other words mandatory for owner IETF ?
Otherwise maybe s/the <owner>/an <owner>/
---
| URI As defined in RFC YYYY
3986 ?
---
7.5: Why are "i;octet" and "i;ascii-numeric" "limited use" ?
The former is apparently "commonly" used to compare invalid
strings as specified in 4.3.2 (+1/0/-1 result).
---
9.1.1 (i:ascii-numeric) Maybe s/decimal/unsigned decimal/
---
9.5.1
| The matching function returns "match" if the sorting
| algorithm would return "0". Otherwise the matching function
| returns "no-match".
Maybe stick to the introduced terms, s/matching/equality/ and
s/sorting/ordering/.
---
Please replace [2] 2234 by 4234.
Please update [4] to 3986.
Please replace [5] 3066 by 3066bis.
Maybe replace [10] 2222 by the 2222bis I-D
Please remove [12] 2434 (unreferenced), I've not checked the
remaining references and didn't look into 9.3 and 9.4.
This draft is an interesting document from my POV, thanks.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf