Thanks for the quick review, Marc. Barry
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 2:06 PM Marc Blanchet via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote: > Reviewer: Marc Blanchet > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I was assigned by the Internationalization Directorate to do a review of > this > document with a specific eye on internationalization and also a specific > request from AD to look at section 10. > > I would like to point out that in some cases, the spec seem to provide a > choice > for the implementor/deposit provider to use something else than UTF-8 for > the > non-ascii encoding. For example, section 4.6.2.1. provides a choice of > encoding > for csv files: "encoding Defines the encoding of the CSV file with the > default > encoding of "UTF-8". Moreover, section 10 talks about UTF-8 and UTF-16 and > recommends UTF-8 instead of making it mandatory. At the same time, there > are > multiple fields in this spec that are defined as UTF-8. Therefore, it > would be > appropriate and much less prone to interoperability problems to make UTF-8 > the > only encoding possible, specially given that most protocols, data payloads > and > software librairies are using UTF-8 encoding. If the authors agree, then > section 10 and 4.6.2.1 could be revised, and probably adding a paragraph in > section 1 or 4 that states the only possible encoding is UTF-8 for both > CSV and > XML files. > > Section 9.14 schema has a comment on ACE name field. Wonder if A-label > would be > more appropriate. > > Section 5.6.2.1.1. While in other parts of the spec, the encoding was > clearly > identified as UTF-8, the definition of "<rdeCsv:fUName> Name of the NNDN > in > Unicode character set for the <csvNNDN:fAName> field element." does not > state > any. Might want to say it clearly as UTF-8 like others. > > > >
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
