On 4/24/14, 8:19 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
I refer you to RFC 5892, section 5.1 and Appendix B:
It might not surprise you, but I don't very much care that IDNAbis did
it the wrong way also.
This is pretty much identical to what IDNA did. I agree that we should
probably recruit the expert (and I hope we can recruit the same expert as
the one for IDNA Derived Properties), but I don't think the task will be
tremendously burdensome, even though it sounds that way. The point of "don't
just copy Appendix A" is to account for the possibility that the Unicode
properties might be moving targets. But for the most part, it's an act of
checking that the properties are "as expected".
I will contact Patrik and see if he's willing.
It's good to hear that it won't be burdensome, but it still seems that
the working group produced an incomplete document. The right way to
have handled this would have been to involve the appropriate experts
near the end of the working group's process, and to get the table in
Appendix A to be the initial registration data, already vetted by the
expert. That way, the instructions to IANA would be clear, and the
IETF and the IESG would be reviewing the complete picture. When the
document is approved and IANA creates the registry, they will contact
the authors to confirm that it's all correct, at which point the
authors would ask the expert to check it again. It's unlikely that
there'd be any changes needed in the roughly four weeks between IETF
last call and document approval, and given that the expert you intend
to recruit is also our liaison to the Unicode Consortium, he could
confirm that they are not working on any updates just now.
That all sounds beautiful. I'm sorry we didn't do it that way.
As it stands, what the working group seems to be saying is that they
don't have the expertise to get this right, and can't get the right
experts involved... which, in any other context, we would push back on
very hard, indeed.
IMHO the WG has worked hard to get things right - we've had two separate
implementations comparing their output, etc. But as we know i18n is
difficult, and perhaps only John Klensin has the expertise to get this
right anyway. :-) That's partly why in general we based PRECIS on the
same technical approach taken in IDNA.
All that said, we've now had the discussion and Pete has this in hand,
so even though I think it was done badly (which is beating up Pete as
much as it is the working group), it's time for me to move this to a
non-blocking comment. If this sort of thing comes up again, *please*
do not do it this way. Get the experts involved earlier, and present
the community with a finished document.
I, for one, intend to never work on an internationalization framework
again...
Peter
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
