-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Nemo, thanks for raising these open issues. I need to read
draft-ietf-precis-mappings-01 again quite carefully, but here is some
quick feedback.

On 2/16/13 7:40 PM, Takahiro Nemoto wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Yoneya-san and I listed open issues for
> draft-ietf-precis-mappings. Please read and give your
> comments/suggestions.
> 
> Followings are current mappings document's open issues.
> 
> 1.  Whether is local case mapping belong in additional mappings in
> precis framework?

The "additional mapping" sections of the framework document do not
specify what those mappings might be (e.g., local case mapping,
special mapping, delimiter mapping, width mapping). Do you suggest
that we add those particular mappings to the framework?

> 2.  If local case mapping belong in precis framework, it's
> necessary to specify mapping order as local case mapping then case
> mapping.

It is true that we need to specify the order of mappings. This is the
case no matter whether local case mapping (and the other "additional
mappings") is specified in the framework or elsewhere.

> Because it makes no sense to perform local case mapping after case
> mapping.

I agree.

> 3.  Handling order of precis framework and precis mappings is
> ambiguous. It's necessary to define the order in precis framework
> or in this document or in both documents.
> 
> And followings are authors’ recommended solutions.
> 
> 1.  Additional mapping should be mappings which are not included in
> Mappings document.

Do you mean "in framework document"?

> 2.  Handling order is Mappings document then processes in precis
> framework document.

Agreed. That's not what the framework document says right now (at the
end of Section 3.1):

   NOTE: In order to ensure proper comparison, any normalization MUST be
   completed before the application of additional mappings or the
   process of checking whether a code point is valid, disallowed, or
   unassigned.

> 3.  The order should be defined in both documents.

That seems like a good idea, although I think the framework ought to
be the guiding document.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=XYIB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis

Reply via email to