On 4/14/14, 9:18 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 4/7/14, 11:40 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
At long last, I finally completed my review of the framework document.
My personal feeling here is that I should go ahead and do the IETF Last
Call and consider the below equivalent to Last Call comments, and we can
discuss them here during Last Call. If anyone has any concerns about
that and thinks we really need to discuss something before I issue the
Last Call, please say so now (i.e., in the next 24 hours). Otherwise,
the Last Call will go out tomorrow.
Great, thanks Pete!
-----
Substantive issue:
-----
4.1.5: I'm not thrilled with this section in general, but in particular
I'm not sure what "mixed-direction strings are not supported" means. We
do know how to process strings that contain characters with a mix of
directionality. Such strings are sometimes a visual challenge, but not a
processing challenge: RFC 5893 exists because IDNs want to use "." as a
label separator yet have text display work in a context that is unaware
of labels. Neither using 5893 nor considering any RTL character making
the whole string RTL is a good recommendation for most cases. Not sure
what to do about this.
See:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis/current/msg00553.html
and
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis/current/msg00557.html
I am not sure how helpful it is to distinguish between processing
challenges and presentation challenges.
I will ponder this further and reply again.
I recall discussion at one of our in-person meetings about bidi. As I
recall, John Klensin sagaciously pointed out that if the PRECIS WG tried
to define a new rule for directionality we would almost certainly get it
wrong, and that it was better to use the Bidi Rule from RFC 5893 than to
design something new. Even though it might be true that the Bidi Rule
might not be a good recommendation for most cases, I do not have
confidence in our ability to come up with a better recommendation.
Would you say that the Bidi Rule works for domain names because "." is a
label separator? In particular, my understanding of the Bidi Rule is
that it doesn't allow mixed-direction *labels*, although it does allow
mixed-direction domain names (where the direction changes at the point
of the label separator).
It seems to me that not supporting mixed-direction strings in PRECIS is
consistent with RFC 5893. I realize that's not ideal, but it might be
the best that *we* can do *now*. Whether some other group could do
something better in the future might be irrelevant.
-----
Editorial issues:
-----
Throughout: Change "Informational Note:" to "Note:". I don't see any of
them for which it makes a difference.
Sure.
BTW, in RFC 6120/6121 I used a personal convention of three kinds of
notes: informational notes, interoperability notes, and security
warnings. My use of "Informational Note:" here derives from that,
although this document doesn't have any interoperability notes so it
might seem a bit strange to include the adjective.
Peter
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
