Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02.txt> (Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF) to BCP

Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com> Mon, 20 June 2011 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <evnikita2@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C8D821F846F for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u9qYQIdkrofN for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:20:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC19D21F846E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm15 with SMTP id 15so1443449fxm.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=7Bsp4WaYnIu7/AGJKHSsLfy4jWb2j+3WfnvK/CSZCCM=; b=TmxdqpCUtb1BRC/NjY73eppJ63hXSxejPSKIKIF4yD7QscSzhz+YDJxgQ7TgAdCHnG OSfZPft+8W9MGljWgdengGtS6YmmbaeOBk+QAh50h0OxoLppxLgLsJoBAVSPXDwThRLo vQTRui08ccB9SdhRDye85zP+9T9IZjUjKE8wU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PkKlKCMnewVYUh2u/u4VZHOFen+BBZHs8WB4gqDVyLswFLJTHaKxFCDNCAZREG4zhZ 9wBgd0QoBG5J7CgbAAMbhqNElHcit3H4yBT86o3sPouWARI53J7LnameGqvxgI7/MgWR gPbnK4Z7E7KtzU3n5zre2To/vfImSzc+yfQxQ=
Received: by 10.223.17.142 with SMTP id s14mr211807faa.145.1308590424773; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([195.191.104.224]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r10sm2935934fah.26.2011.06.20.10.20.22 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 20 Jun 2011 10:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DFF8185.9090300@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 20:21:09 +0300
From: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ru; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
References: <20110616130400.4851.68985.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DFAC83A.6010208@gmail.com> <BANLkTinqSPLTZP8+isq6VF10VhJ0j3K6MA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinqSPLTZP8+isq6VF10VhJ0j3K6MA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis-02.txt> (Terminology Used in Internationalization in the IETF) to BCP
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:20:27 -0000

20.06.2011 0:55, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> On 17 June 2011 05:21, Mykyta Yevstifeyev wrote:
>
>> I proposed improving the "control character" definition
> Let's keep it simple.  ECMA 48 5th edition claims that its
> 4th edition corresponds to ISO 6429:1992, and that there
> should be a new ISO 6429 based on ECMA 48 5th ed.
>
> If that actually happened your proposal to add a non-free
> ISO 6429:1992 reference could be arguably obsolete.
>
> The control codes only mean something in the context
> of specifications using it, e.g., TUS doesn't use most of
> the C0 or C1 control codes (adding its own oddities).
>
> Wrt i18n ECMA 48 5th ed. could be even interesting, it
> covers BiDi.   But I'd never trust in any BiDi spec. unless
> it was written by one of the usual suspects (Martin, John,
> Harald, Paul, etc.)
My first proposal was to include reference to ISO 6429; yet, it isn't 
mandatory.  Let's produce a simple definition of what is the control 
character used for.  It may be taken from ISO/IEC 10646 as well.  I 
don't think the current text reflects this.
>> we're trying to give the terms normative meaning within
>> IETF, since the intended status is BCP
> The business with the C0 + C1 terminology is IMO correct
> in the draft, and explaining what if anything specifc control
> codes do is out of scope.
See above.  Let's not explain what do they mean, but rather what are 
their overall mission.  That's my point.

Mykyta
> The "net UTF-8" BCP obsoletes
> most of these codes, and the i18n terminology draft has a
> pointer to the "net UTF-8 BCP" (IIRC).
>
>   >  The document makes normative reference to an obsolete
>> document - ISO/IEC 10646:2003 whereas ISO/IEC
>> 10646:2011 is published.  The reference should be
>> corrected.
> Above all it should be the ISO 10646 version corresponding
> to the referenced TUS version, if you checked that I'd agree.
>
> -Frank
>