Thanks for the quick review, Marc.
Barry
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:06 PM Marc Blanchet via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Marc Blanchet
Review result: Ready with Issues
I was assigned by the Internationalization Directorate to do a review of this
document with a specific eye on internationalization and also a specific
request from AD to look at section 10.
I would like to point out that in some cases, the spec seem to provide a choice
for the implementor/deposit provider to use something else than UTF-8 for the
non-ascii encoding. For example, section 4.6.2.1. provides a choice of encoding
for csv files: "encoding Defines the encoding of the CSV file with the default
encoding of "UTF-8". Moreover, section 10 talks about UTF-8 and UTF-16 and
recommends UTF-8 instead of making it mandatory. At the same time, there are
multiple fields in this spec that are defined as UTF-8. Therefore, it would be
appropriate and much less prone to interoperability problems to make UTF-8 the
only encoding possible, specially given that most protocols, data payloads and
software librairies are using UTF-8 encoding. If the authors agree, then
section 10 and 4.6.2.1 could be revised, and probably adding a paragraph in
section 1 or 4 that states the only possible encoding is UTF-8 for both CSV and
XML files.
Section 9.14 schema has a comment on ACE name field. Wonder if A-label would be
more appropriate.
Section 5.6.2.1.1. While in other parts of the spec, the encoding was clearly
identified as UTF-8, the definition of "<rdeCsv:fUName> Name of the NNDN in
Unicode character set for the <csvNNDN:fAName> field element." does not state
any. Might want to say it clearly as UTF-8 like others.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
