Re: 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]

 



25.06.2011 22:27, SM wrote:
At 06:04 16-06-2011, 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

This document uses an unusual format to show the source of a definition (Section 1.2).  It's clearer (to me) if the document used the regular format for references.
RFC 3536 itself, which this document tries to follow, was Independent stream document, whereas we have a number of evidences of unusual formatting within such documents.  My personal opinion is that your comment is quite reasonable, and this should be fixed.  <NONE>s should be removed then.

The anchor9 comment in Section 3.2, minus the last sentence, could be folded in as part of the I-D.  Pointing out that the definition is not precisely correct is correct in itself.
Another comment to Section 3.2:

    "and defined in The Unicode Standard
      (Sections 3.9 and 16.8 of Version 5.2)"

Such instances of text should be reverified to suit Unicode 6.0 and ISO/IEC 10646:2011. 

I also don't think definition of BMP should not go in Section 3.2, but somewhere else.

As for SM's comment, I'd recommend the draft's 1st paragraph of Section 3.2 with anchor9 were rewritten to suit the new editions of Standards and, as a result, didn't mention transformation formats but rather encoding forms.  This is also as ISO/IEC 10646:2011 does.

In Section 4:

  "Code Point order is usually not how any human educated by a local
   school system expects to see strings ordered; if one orders to the
   expectations of a human, one has a language-specific sort."

This is generally referred to as natural language sort.

There is a view within the IETF that a BCP comes with the obligatory RFC 2119 key words.  This old school "BCP" was a pleasant read.
My personal opinion is that use of RFC 2119 in glossaries isn't appropriate.  As they give definitions, I don't think requirement levels are fine here.

An additional comment to Section 8 I didn't expressed before.

    "private use

     ISO/IEC 10646 code points from U+E000 to U+F8FF, U+F0000 to"

I'd better use "private use character" or "private use codepoint" as a name of term.

Please also verify many of your Informative references to see whether they didn't get obsoleted by other document.  Eg. ISO/IEC TR 11017:1997(E) has :2003 edition now, etc.

Thanks,
Mykyta Yevstifeyev


Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
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]