Re: [I18ndir] [art] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bray-unichars-05.txt

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 10:29 AM Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Two big differences here:
>
>
>    1. The %0-10FFFF production, and discussion of All The Code Points as
>    a subset, is removed. Which ended up re-organizing the draft quite a bit
>    (diffs vs -04 may not be very helpful) but we think improved the flow quite
>    a bit; thanks to James and Carsten for arguing this point so fiercely.
>    2. The discussion around RFC9413 is changed quite a bit based on
>    Asmus’ input.
>
>
> Unless substantial new issues are raised, we plan to consult our ADs about
> advancing the document.
>

There are still some bugs here. Generally, I think "Abstract Character
Repertoire" as used here is good:
https://unicode.org/reports/tr17/#Repertoire

Making it clear that the various encoding and escaping routines happen
before or after this idea. I don't think you need to add "Abstract" as a
qualifier. Just explain it.

> The Unicode Standard's definition of "Unicode character" is conceptual.
> However, each Unicode character is assigned a code point, used to
represent
> the characters in computer memory and storage systems and, in
specifications,
> to specify the allowed repertoires of Unicode characters.

I think you want to add: "Not all code points represent characters."

> In ABNF, the hexadecimal values for characters are preceded by "%x"
rather than "U+"."

But these are code points in the ABNF, right? For example:

https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-bray-unichars-05.html#section-4.1

"; exclude surrogates"

These are in the problematic code point types. They are not characters. So,
it's probably best to go through and clean that up.

I think the "Restricting Character Repertoires" section should be run
through a grammar checker (MS Word or something). It doesn't say anything
incorrect, but I often thought "hmm, there should be a comma there" and
little things like that. Thank you for taking the "conforming JSON text"
suggestion, but the capitalization differs between the two uses: "JSON
text" vs "JSON Text".

thanks,
Rob