Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02.txt> (Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF) to BCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello all,

I have an only concern with regard to this document which I expressed before, during WG discussions, and which I'd like to bring to IESG's attention now.

For a number of times I proposed improving the "control character" definition in Section 4.1:

    control character

       The 65 characters in the ranges U+0000..U+001F and U+007F..U+009F.
       The basic space character, U+0020, is often considered as a
       control character as well, making the total number 66.  They are
       also known as control codes.  In terminology adopted by Unicode
       from ASCII and the ISO 8859 standards, these codes are treated as
       belonging to three ranges: "C0" (for U+0000..U+001F), "C1" (for
       U+0080...U+009F), and the single control character "DEL" (U+007F).
       <UNICODE>
My proposals included http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02558.html and http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02589.html. The main justification I provided is that, in accordance with Abstract: "This document provides a glossary of terms [...]" so we need to specify "what does the control character mean" but not "what Unicode codepoints are assigned for control characters". Yet, on the apps-discuss mailing list there were some concerns regarding the fact that control characters are unfamiliar to internalization so my proposed definition is not an option (one of the authors shares this opinion). Thus, why does it occur in its current form? So, there are two possible variants, I think: (1) remove the "control character" definition from the document as irrelevant to internalization or (2) produce a really good definition of this term (consider we're trying to give the terms normative meaning within IETF, since the intended status is BCP). I didn't manage to persuade the authors or WG to undertake any of the aforementioned options and I hope IESG should decide on this.

Also, as a minor remark on references. The document makes normative reference to an obsolete document - ISO/IEC 10646:2003 whereas ISO/IEC 10646:2011 is published. The reference should be corrected.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev

16.06.2011 16:04, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
- 'Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF'
   <draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02.txt>  as a BCP

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-06-30. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


    This document provides a glossary of terms used in the IETF when
    discussing internationalization.  The purpose is to help frame
    discussions of internationalization in the various areas of the IETF
    and to help introduce the main concepts to IETF participants.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.


_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]