Re: [apps-discuss] I-D Action: draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-00.txt

[Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>]

10.05.2011 23:09, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>> I think this definition is not correct.  "A way that humans interact" is
>>>> too generalized.  I suppose the following definition would suit better here.
> ...
>>> Your definition is too limiting. Clearly, we are not only talking about
>>> speech.
>> Agreed; but the current isn't appropriate as well.  Considering a language
>> being the humans interaction way is correct in its concept, but I think we
>> should think about more exact definition.
> I don't.  I think the text is fine as it is, and we should stop
> pushing on this point and leave it alone.  [The only change I can see
> supporting is inserting "verbal" before "way".  But there are
> non-verbal languages, as well.]
Adding "verbal" seems fine to me; this will clarify the definition a bit.
>>>> I think we can clarify a bit this definition by mentioning: "The
>>>> semantics of control characters depend on the application they are used
>>>> with.  The most common control characters semantics are specified in ISO/IEC
>>>> 6429:1992 [ISO6429]" and adding the appropriate reference to ISO 6429, like
>>>> this: "ISO/IEC, "ISO/IEC 6429:1992. Information technology -- Control
>>>> functions for coded character sets",1992."
>>> This seems like overkill. We don't define the semantics of any other code
>>> points; why do it for control characters?
>> I proposed to add at least some phrase on the role of control characters.
>>   ISO/IEC 6429 suits for this purpose fine, I think.
> I'm ambivalent here.  On the one hand, I think the text is sufficient
> as it is, and that we should move on.  On the other hand, with a whole
> generation brought up with SmartPhones, I think fewer people
> understand what control characters were -- WHY this set of codepoints
> is special.  A bit of history wouldn't be a bad thing, if not strictly
> necessary.
>
> In any case, I don't support using ISO 6429 for it.  A few words of
> background here would be enough, IF we want to put them in.  Pointing
> to an 80-page, 150-euro document doesn't cut it for me.
How about the following text:

    control character

       The control character (also known as control code) is a special-purpose
       codepoint in a particular coded character set that generally does not
       represent any written symbol.  Generally, control characters are used
       to control handling  of data; they can be considered to be and  in-band
       signaling in the context of character encoding.<NONE>

       Currently, there are 65 control characters, occupying the ranges
       U+0000..U+001F and U+007F..U+009F.  The basic space character, U+0020,
       is often considered as a control character as well, making the total
       number 66.  In terminology adopted by Unicode from ASCII and the
       ISO 8859 standards, these codes are treated as belonging to three
       ranges: "C0" (for U+0000..U+001F), "C1" (for U+0080...U+009F), and
       the single control character "DEL" (U+007F).


>>>> I also think the reference to [CHARMOD] is a bit incorrect as well.  I
>>>> propose:
>>>>
>>>>> Duerst, M., Ed., Yergeau, F., Ed., Ishida, R., Ed., Wolf, M., Ed. and T.
>>>>> Texin, Ed., "Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0", W3C
>>>>> Recommendation, February 2005.<http://www.w3.org/TR/charmod/>
>>> Disagree. Listing a bunch of folks does not help the reference at all.
>> You could then mention "Duerst, M., et al, ...".  See, we're not mentioning
>> IETF as an author of RFCs; the same is with W3C.
> Paul's been consistent in using the organization as the author for all
> non-IETF documents -- there's another W3C citation, many from Unicode,
> a couple from ISO (ugh), and so on.  That seems the right thing to do
> here, too.  He does have a note in asking the RFC Editor to normalize
> the citations, and I think we should leave this issue to the RFC
> Editor and their style guide.
OK, let's leave this for RFC Editor.

Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Barry, as participant
>