Hello Peter-san, thank you for your feedback. Our comment is following. Please make sure.
On 2013/02/17, at 13:52, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? No, we don't. We think those particular mappings, that are described in mappings document, are pre-preparation process performed before the framework like RFC5895. > >> 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. Thanks. We already specified the order in mappings document. > >> 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"? No, we don't. We think additional mapping of framework is mappings other than in mappings 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. Thanks. > >> 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. Do you mean "the mappings document" ought to be the guiding document? Regards, Nemo -- Takahiro Nemoto [email protected] _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
