---- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Haas" <jhaas@xxxxxxxx> To: "t.p." <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:38 PM > 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. Jeff I was unclear. I agree that we should not be reserving 'one' if it is the first - rather, I was suggesting that in the title, and probably in the Abstract, 'first' would be more readily understood than 'zeroth' (which sounds like the last letter of an little-known Eastern language:-). Then in the Introduction, spell out that it is zero that is meant by first. Tom Petch > 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