On 10/9/13 3:12 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > On 2013/10/09 18:02, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: >> 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. > > In addition, in the introduction, there is a paragraph: > > 5. Leave various mapping operations (e.g., case preservation or > lowercasing, Unicode normalization, mapping of certain characters > to other characters or to nothing, handling of full-width and > half-width characters, handling of right-to-left characters) as > the responsibility of application protocols, as was done for > IDNA2008 through an IDNA-specific mapping document [RFC5895]. > > where "handling of right-to-left characters" is described as a mapping > operation. That doesn't make sense to me, I think it should be moved out > to a separate point.
I think we can change "mapping operations" to "character-related operations". Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
