On 2013/10/09 5:55, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 9/11/13 8:06 PM, Joseph Yee wrote:
Reviewed the draft, think the approach is good. Just one minor comment. Same as Florian, had the 'hmm' reaction when reading about directionality and application behaviour at Section 3.1. It seems that the only application behaviour is permitted pattern. It doesn't deal with visual appearance I believed. Maybe replace 'application behaviour' with 'permitted patther of the string' (or 'allowed combination of the string')?Hmm, I see why you and Florian don't like that text. :-) How about this? OLD Directionality: defines application behavior in the presence of code points that have directionality, in particular right-to-left code points as defined in the Unicode database (see [UAX9]). NEW Directionality: defines which strings are to be considered left-to-right (LTR) and right-to-left (RTL), and the allowable sequences of characters in LTR and RTL strings.
That may be an improvement, but it's missing the fact that LTR and RTL strings are the only two alternatives allowed.
Also, it would be good to somewhere say that there is currently no widely accepted and implemented solution for the display of constructs with mixed pieces (e.g. domain names with LTR and RTL components (labels), because the problem is inherently extremely hard.
Regards, Martin. _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
