Tom, Thanks for the feedback. On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 12:55:07PM +0100, t.p. wrote: > I would prefer 'first' to 'zeroth' - I find the latter somewhat > obscure - and I would prefer the title to be more specific, The intention is to strongly imply "code point zero". While we don't have many things that start counting from one (BITS in SMIv2 being a counter example, iirc.) the intention is definitley not to reserve the first thing if it's non-zero. This probably shows a bit of prejudice to C and similar language constructs, but there you have it. > slotting in > the word 'numeric' after IETF (or should that be IANA?) since textual > registries can be ordered and have a first and last but the > considerations here would not apply. I'll look at wedging in numeric somewhere in there. The name is already getting to be a bit long. IANA was specifically not included in the text since some code point registries may exist solely within a document for some length of its lifetime. I was also suggested to consider dropping "IETF" since the practice is still useful outside of IETF documents, but other SDOs get cranky if you start recommending what they should do. :-) -- Jeff