Re: [I18ndir] I18ndir last call review of draft-faltstrom-unicode11-08

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

(Last call list removed - as far as I know, there is no current
IETF Last Call, especially on draft-draft-faltstrom-unicode11.)

Without comment on any of the details right now (after the time
that went into draft-crocker-inreply-react and a few other
things, I'm going to need at least until the weekend), I just
want to verify that you are looking at the current version of
the current draft, which is draft-faltstrom-unicode12-01.  As
far as I know, that version has not yet been made generally
available but perhaps Patrik could make it available to the
directorate list.

   thanks,
    john


--On Thursday, March 4, 2021 19:57 -0800 "Asmus, Inc. via
Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Reviewer: Asmus, Inc.
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> (1) The math of code points needs to be reviewed in section
> 4.3. It appears to not account for a property change for
> U+111C9
> 
> (2) In Section 5, there's a sentence that seems to have a
> sense destroying edit:
> 
>      The code point if being accepted might due ???? to
> implementations of      IDNA2008 based on older versions of
> Unicode than 11.0.0 be rejected.
> 
> (3) plural noun/verb mismatch in section 6
> 
>     ... new versions [...] is...
> 
> (4) Section 8: use of definite article. Drop "the" in front of
> Unicode Version (also check other instances)
> 
> (5) Usefully, the discussion of SHARADA SANDHI MARK could
> point out whether it treated the same or different from other
> SANDHI marks in related scripts. (From just looking at the
> tables, and not the original UCD entries, it looks like that
> they are all now treated the same, which would be beneficial
> under the "least astonishment" principle - or whatever it's
> called).
> 
> This review based primarily on the diff, with just some look
> at the full text to get the complete context for some items.