--On Monday, March 02, 2015 09:21 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> * [MINOR] - The reference to UNICODE in this document is to
>> version 6.3, while precis-framework references version 7.0
>> and text in section 6.1 mentions version 7.0. Is the
>> difference intentional here, or a case of missing a reference
>> update? I'm guessing it's a missed reference ...
>
> Hi Matt, thanks for the feedback.
In fairness to Peter and other PRECIS doc authors, this process
has dragged out for a rather long time, with Unicode evolving
from, IIR, 6.0 to 7.0 during that period. To complicate things
further (and again IIR -- I don't have time to spend on this),
references to sections of 6.3 are meaningless because the core
spec wasn't reissued for 6.3 -- it was the 6.2 core spec plus
code point changes.
Section numbers do periodically change when moving from one
version to another, so Section N.M of 6.0 may not have the same
number (or, in a few cases, even the same structure within the
Section) in 7.0. To make this more exciting, the final
formatted version of the 7.0 Core spec was not published until
December; at least in theory, section numbers could have changed
up to that time.
On the other hand, if any of the statements normatively
referenced by any PRECIS spec have actually changed
substantively, regardless of how they are phrased and the
numbered sections in which they appear, then we are in big
trouble that goes far beyond any discussions of just what should
be referenced.
> We had some discussion months ago (IIRC occasioned by comments
> from John Klensin) about citing a particular version when
> necessary (e.g., 3.2 or 6.3 or 7.0) but otherwise having a
> generic pointer to the Unicode Standard when we're talking
> about the technology in general, rather than a particular
> version.
Yes. And the above, and the hope that the index to the Unicode
Standard is adequate, are the reasons for that. All things
being equal, I'd prefer that all of the PRECIS specs reference
the same version of Unicode, but that is just to make things
more convenient for readers.
> Let me send a note to the RFC Editor about this and see what
> they might recommend.
Good plan. Trying to tune it on this list is probably
sub-optimal and it is their job to spot things like this and
sort them out. Obviously, feel free to share the above with
them and/or to pull me into the conversation if I can help.
best,
john
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
