On 5/21/14, 1:26 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, 20 May, 2014 20:16 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<[email protected]> wrote:
...
If you wanted, s/This category includes/This currently
empty category will include/ would be clearer for me.
(Assuming I read it right:-)
That part is quoted from RFC 5892. However, in the note that
precedes the quoted text, I suggest that we add the following
sentence:
At the time of this writing (and also at the time that
RFC 5892 was published), this category consisted of the
empty set; however, that is subject to change as described
in RFC 5892.
Unless I misunderstand, if the kinds of exceptions that would
justify using that category were to arise, we'd need separate
review and evaluation systems and approvals for IDNA and PRECIS,
even if they were largely performed by the same people.
Unless *I* misunderstand, the kinds of exceptions that would lead to
populating the BackwardCompatible category specified in RFC 5892 are
limited to adding characters to or removing characters from the
LetterDigits category. If indeed one of our goals is to reduce the
possibility of user astonishment, it seems preferable for the PRECIS
classes (and profiles thereof) to track the BackwardCompatible category
itself, rather than to define a PrecisBackwardCompatible category. This
will also simplify implementations.
Peter
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
