Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> (The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0) to Proposed Standard

[Paul Hoffman <[e-mail]>]

On May 29, 2011, at 12:14 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Sunday, May 29, 2011 13:25 +0200 Patrik Fältström
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> FWIW, although I agree with John and expect me getting a fair
>> number of editorial corrections because of English not being
>> my native language when this document hit the RFC editor, I
>> have slightly changed the first paragraph in the upcoming new
>> version to the following:
>> 
>> (sorry, can not generate TXT now, but you get the point...)
>> 
>> If you have other suggested changes, let me know.
>> 
>> <t><xref target="RFC5892">RFC 5892</xref> specifies an
>> algorithm that    was defined when 
> 
> Please say "rule set" or something like that, not "algorithm".
> While "algorithm" is strictly correct, some people will read it
> as pseudo-code, and our principle should remain that anything
> that produces the save results is correct.

Do you think this change follows the definition of "rule set" in RFC 5892? To me, "algorithm" seems much better. From the introduction to 5892:
   This document reviews and classifies the collections of code points
   in the Unicode character set by examining various properties of the
   code points.  It then defines an algorithm for determining a derived
   property value.  It specifies a procedure, and not a table, of code
   points so that the algorithm can be used to determine code point sets
   independent of the version of Unicode that is in use.
The term "rule set" is used specifically as part of the context registry, and not at all what we are discussing here.

>> Unicode 6.0 has changed GeneralCategory of three code points
>> that    where allocated in Unicode 5.2 or earlier. This imply
>> the derived    property value differs depending on whether the
>> property definitions    used are from Unicode 5.2 or 6.0.
>> </t>
> 
> Editorial recommendation (no change in meaning):
> 
> Unicode 6.0 changed the GeneralCategory of three code points
> that had been allocated in Unicode 5.2 or earlier. The
> consequence of that change is that the derived property value
> for those code points differs depending on whether the property
> definitions used are from Unicode 5.2 or 6.0. </t>


Seems like a good change to me.

--Paul Hoffman