Re: [I18ndir] [art] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bray-unichars-04.txt

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:39 AM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 10:49 AM Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hello again.  This draft corrects errors pointed out on these mailing
>> lists (thanks!) and goes to some length to address the arguments that
>> mentioning the All-Code-Points option is toxic, and that the definition of
>> UTF-8 excludes the possibility of surrogates. It relies more strongly on
>> the discussions in RFC 9413 (which BTW I hadn’t read except in an early
>> draft - I recommend to everyone, it’s really good).
>>
>
> Hi,
>
> It all seems correct in general. I'm sure people will keep finding little
> mistakes. It's tough not to have those in a document of this sort.
>
> Below are some editorial suggestions. Take em or leave em. :)
>

I found a few other things.

> For example, JSON allows object member names and string values to include
any Unicode code points, including all the problematic types.

Instead:

"For example, JSON object member names and string values can include any
Unicode code point, including all problematic types."

[rationale: "any Unicode code points" reads a little awkwardly]

> Note that the Unicode-character subsets specified in this document
include a successively-decreasing number of surrogates and noncharacters,
and thus should be less and less susceptible to vulnerabilities.

I think the document could use a pass reviewing all of the compound
adjectives. There are straightforward cases, but there are some composed of
two nouns (debatably correct, but could be clearer) and this one with an
adverb, which I think is actually incorrect. There are just a lot of them,
too. I can understand getting there if you're writing really fast, I also
overuse patterns when writing quickly.

thanks,
Rob