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

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@xxxxxxxxx> · Sun, 26 Jun 2011 07:46:55 +0300



    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