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

On 11/21/13 6:29 PM, Florian Zeitz wrote:
> On 22.11.2013 01:41, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 11/21/13 2:19 PM, Florian Zeitz wrote:
>> 
>>> I've reread the draft in its entirety now that some time has 
>>> passed. I have a few minor comments (some of them nits, which 
>>> IMHO is a good sign), but overall I'm very pleased with it and 
>>> think all feedback has been addressed.
>> 
>> Thanks for the review!
>> 
>>> Generally I think we need to update the draft to Unicode 6.3.
>>> If we don't, at least the claims that Unicode 6.2 is the latest
>>>  version at the time of writing should be removed ;).
>> 
>> Yes, I noticed that while completing my own review earlier this 
>> week.
>> 
>>> Section 4.1.1 claims width mapping is an aspect of NFKC. While 
>>> this is true it is more generally an aspect of compatibility 
>>> decomposition, and therefore happens when NFKD is employed. I 
>>> think the text should reflect this.
>> 
>> How about this?
>> 
>> OLD Because one aspect of Unicode normalization form KC (NFKC)
>> is width mapping, a profile that uses NFKC does not need to
>> specify width mapping.
>> 
>> NEW Because Unicode normalization form KC (NFKC) performs width 
>> mapping via compatibility decomposition and subsequent 
>> recomposition, a profile that uses NFKC does not need to specify 
>> width mapping.
>> 
> That actually misses my point.

I don't think it misses your point, although it's not as complete as
your suggested text because it doesn't mention NFKD.

> I'd suggest: NEW Since width mapping is performed as a part of
> compatibility decomposition, a profile employing either
> normalization form KD (NFKD), or normalization form KC (NFKC) does
> not need to specify width mapping.

WFM.

>>> Section 4.1.3 right now says: «Use of the Unicode Default Case
>>>  Folding algorithm is RECOMMENDED.» That statement is broader 
>>> than we want it to be. Use of that algorithm is certainly 
>>> recommended, but if and only if case-preservation is not 
>>> desired.
>> 
>> Correct.
>> 
>> A minor note: the Unicode specification does not use the term 
>> "Unicode Default Case Folding algorithm", so it seems better to 
>> refer to it as the "Unicode case folding algorithm" (and also to 
>> reference Chapter 5 of the Unicode Standard).
>> 
> That is untrue. Section 3.13 "Default Case Algorithms" in the
> Unicode standard refers to this as the "Default Case Folding",
> always eliding the "algorithm" though. Chapter 5 later makes a
> reference to "the default case folding algorithm". My instinct
> would also have been to refer to Chapter 3, rather than Chapter 5.

Yes, that's better. I forgot about the definition in Chapter 3.

>> Thus:
>> 
>> If case preservation is not desired, it is RECOMMENDED to use the
>>  Unicode case folding algorithm (see Chapter 5 of the Unicode 
>> Standard).
>> 
>>> Section 7.11 says the category exempts printable 7-bit ASCII 
>>> from other rules. This is untrue. The algorithm does this, 
>>> utilizing the category.
>> 
>> Good point. How about:
>> 
>> By applying this PRECIS-specific category, the algorithm
>> specified under Section 8 exempts most characters in the
>> (printable) ASCII-7 range from other rules that might be applied
>> during PRECIS processing, on the assumption that these code
>> points are in such wide use that disallowing them would be
>> counter-productive.
>> 
> Purely for stylistic reasons, i.e. being more in line with how
> other categories are worded, I would suggest: This PRECIS-specific
> category consists of all printable, non-space characters from the
> 7-bit ASCII range. By applying this category, the algorithm
> specified under Section 8 exempts these characters from other rules
> that might be applied during PRECIS processing, on the assumption
> that these code points are in such wide use that disallowing them
> would be counter-productive.

Agreed.

Peter

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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSjsbqAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pqzMP/A1G09TfVJj1aTKgATf3CRjG
yw0625IJrlWuMf86TRXOjTULLdteGVl/38+eDbAyTHBPZS2Bzg0Ai/g++OdV98J6
kInnO8D0+Y3qmMnCVucTwWDPs5WOJ9PeFMH+fEShPRUZqdg/hr02nW4ckg6qtksF
OxtponOTMPmk7kXlILT/7fC2UblZ3rR7r8uOGOTGx1JolW5k9+6J6KL25Qcg8kBD
nwE6FM6g80M7qXzgyHYGIH4eJg/ce1mLrer3x0g80Ht4BtYiEUTdA6tLojkTA+Ge
8FGY7G9aYzN/e0KdQvlVeOJNI0wHUyMY+BjQi4BzoXVyQ/rtX74mR9y7O2hCXv0k
+hXTJDotYwhRNlaynzvqnnFHU+6NEv4I1yZ0WJ1KGkvdo1KxekYb55TEfgExqVJK
uLYnCJ3SQeLusHo/bL0YyqRuXxkinJAdapeX15Gp0yNZz2JrXENhkPipXvK8SGKD
IGZCV7V1ao2H5tNQ9RdLcvyuChTdPX2oCOH+SnqffDARuDrUsDnnxNVRIb3O6r5z
M7V9ph3qXZfvO7zDPDaf7TNvrRGQJNffQKvfYhnB47bwEDAlwv/3tDR44BskmbnA
TtM6yTHixw6AwL0cqmcrHhir4EW3FgssibUqGfIxr45p2bmDqy1Pxcf73lq7DzNA
2NQLa2s8mtU+9ojD+39y
=BzqQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis

Reply via email to