Dear Colleagues,
thanks a lot for your extensive review of the URN:LEX draft and sorry for
our delay.
We have reported in a new draft all your remarks accepting your proposals,
except the ones still in doubts. Please find them, in-line, here below. Once
clarified these last doubts, we can submit the new, and hopefully final,
version.
Thanks for your collaboration!
best
Pierluigi and Enrico
>15) <!-- [rfced] We have a few questions about the text below.
>
>Original:
>2.2. Jurisdiction-code Register
>
> A new jurisdiction-code registry has been created. Each entry
> contains the following elements:
>
>a) Should the title read "Jurisdiction-Code Registry" ("Registry" rather than
>"Register")?
No, it is actually a database, not the office managing such a database
>b) Is "jurisdiction-code" the name of the registry? If so, we will enclose in
>quotation marks.
No, it is the code identifying a jurisdiction
>
>c) Would it be helpful to include a citation or URL so readers can access the
>new jurisdiction-code registry?
>-->
We said already that it did not exist yet and we would create it when the rfc
would be approved. The reviewers accepted that…
See also next period at section 2.2 (end of [page 10]): “The table is initially
empty.”
>
>
>
>17) <!-- [rfced] Would including either a URL or a citation with a
>corresponding
>reference entry for "CNR website dedicated to the LEX governance" be
>helpful to readers here? If so, please provide the necessary information.
>
>Original:
> A new Jurisdictional Registrar will contact CNR or the Designated
> Expert(s) according to the established rules of governance (published
> in the CNR website dedicated to the LEX governance).
>-->
Currently such website is not available. As soon as the draft will be approved
we will contact experts and create the Designated Expert(s) board
>
>
>40) <!-- [rfced] Please review each instance of U+ notation and let us know if
>you would like to replace with the character itself.
>
>The <u> element (which can be used to provide the U+ notation) is only
>required for cases where the non-ASCII characters are needed for correct
>protocol operation.
>
>For more information, please see:
>https://authors.ietf.org/en/non-ascii-characters-in-rfcxml
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#nonascii
>
>For examples from published RFCs, please see (search for "non-ASCII"):
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=v3_feature_usage
>
>Some examples from this document:
>
>Example 1 (from Section 3.4):
>
>Original:
> (e.g.,
> the Italian term "sanitU+00E0" replaced into "sanita", the French
> term "ministU+00E8re" replaced into "ministere"), in case by
> transliteration (e.g. "MU+00FCnchen" replaced into "muenchen”).
>
>Perhaps:
> For example,
> the Italian term "sanità” is replaced by "sanita", the French
> term "ministère” is replaced by "ministere”, and
> "München” is replaced by “muenchen” (transliteration).
>
>
>Example 2 (from Section 3.4):
>
>Original:
> - unicode = urn:lex:de:stadt.mU+00FCnchen:rundschreiben: ...
>
>Perhaps no changes are needed when the U+ notation appears in a "urn:lex"
>string like this.
>-->
The problem here is that non-ASCII characters are not accepted in the txt
version (derived from mkd which is our source file)
>41) <!-- [rfced] Sourcecode
>
>a) We updated <artwork> to <sourcecode type="abnf"> in Section 8. We also
>updated the ABNF snippets throughout the document from <artwork> to
><sourcecode type="abnf">. Please review.
>
>
>b) In Section 2.1, we changed the following from <artwork> to
><sourcecode>. Please confirm that this is correct. If so, should the "type"
>attribute be set?
>
>Original:
> "urn:lex:" NSS
>
>Note: The current list of preferred values for "type" is available here:
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/rpc/wiki/doku.php?id=sourcecode-types. If this list
>does not contain an applicable type, then feel free to let us know. Also, it
>is acceptable to leave the "type" attribute not set.
>
>
>c) In Section 5.8, we changed the following from <artwork> to
><sourcecode>. We set the type to "abnf", but please confirm this is
>correct. We do not see this in Section 8.
>
>Original:
> URN-reference = URN-document ["~" partition-id]
>...
>-->
We couldn't find how to include<sourcecode type="abnf"> in the mkd document,
which is our source file.
>
>
>44) <!-- [rfced] Please review each remaining artwork element in the current
>xml
>file. Specifically, should any artwork element be tagged as <sourcecode>,
><ul>, <t>, or another element?
>-->
We succeeded to generate <tt> in the XML from the MKD using ``, but as for the
other elements mentioned, should we include them manually? This seems not in
line with the possibility to generate txt, html and xml formats from mkd
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
