On 4/21/2014 11:14 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:
In general, I heartily dislike "specifications" that just narrate a
particular implementation...
I agree completely. I see this with CLDR as well; there is a more or
less implicit assumption that I will be using ICU to implement whatever
is being described. I don't care how robust and well-tested a wheel is;
as a developer, I should be able to use the specification to reinvent it
if I like.
Well put. Also, by simply narrating an implementation the UTC deprives
the reader of a clear higher-level description of the concept and the
intended result. The original part of the bidi specification does a much
better job in that regard. It's time to revisit the language for the
additions and bring them up to snuff.
A./
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
