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

Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com> Sun, 19 June 2011 21:55 UTC

Return-Path: <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@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 1683211E8114 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.824
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.275, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 622+MjWVaSl6 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 895F811E80EC for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh18 with SMTP id 18so3458486pvh.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QmG8VlrxMsEJVvlfTKubwT44BCa8IJMiEdp53SOmCo4=; b=S/lNzR+rhwPO4JvFpLHviitiRciBgpugThVURZDPWNU9OLVGNvx1i+0AEgQ0V/IQWP AcNTKbIWoIAVKxdMHmH+4NBaLiajm08SFW4nnWGZ5X/lAswsktKrtXIe5Tu+C/37wTBY +mMwvUyySZ7ZlIz6HHCj7oKEq6/cLSoWvd6zw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=xCvF7VXIOjPLXKmsoCs7DsiS8O2ONHurD57Hhhx40VP2aDqiMziFECEkPkavNoI2iN VDeKQuPCBQA9SDKEOWRK+Yh2Dpcnd/eqwBddRKreEndoqIm8CioBua3H0xN5XOnv0LtH DV4m45KQPU5V40Mi/fJne+CYh5qX1Umcd+R04=
Received: by 10.142.226.15 with SMTP id y15mr710483wfg.232.1308520544258; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.156.6 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jun 2011 14:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DFAC83A.6010208@gmail.com>
References: <20110616130400.4851.68985.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4DFAC83A.6010208@gmail.com>
From: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 23:55:23 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinqSPLTZP8+isq6VF10VhJ0j3K6MA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:55:45 -0000

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.)

> 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.   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