Re: [Gen-art] LC review: draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt

WFM

--On Wednesday, January 06, 2010 14:58 +0100 Harald Alvestrand
<harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> John C Klensin wrote:
>> --On Tuesday, October 06, 2009 07:07 -0400 Vint Cerf
>> <vint@google.com> wrote:
>> 
>>   
>>> Martin,
>>> 
>>> in that case, let's see whether we have consensus around
>>> simply explaining
>>> that not all CS are permitted by BiDi and that both tables
>>> and bidi rules are needed
>>> to implement IDNA2008 as intended.
>>>     
>> 
>> To keep this in perspective, there are several other
>> categories in the lists in Bidi from which only a very small
>> number of characters are permitted by Tables.    In the case
>> of CS, the "small number" is zero but, unless the readers
>> understand that they need to go to Tables for specific
>> permitted character information, they might be equally
>> confused.
>> 
>> So, IMO, the correct statement is something like "not all
>> characters from the listed categories are permitted by BiDi
>> and... as intended".    I don't think CS is special in that
>> regard.
>>   
> I am now integrating changes suggested during Last Call review
> so that a new version can be emitted as soon as the IESG says
> "no other issues".
> 
> In response to this issue, I have added the following
> statement to the introduction:
> 
> The other normative documents in the IDNA2008 document
> set establish criteria for valid labels, including listing the
> permitted
> characters. This document establishes
> additional validity criteria for labels in scripts normally
> written
> from right to left.
> 
> I think that's what the document was saying all along, but it
> doesn't hurt to be over-explicit, especially given the
> reactions to "CS" that we've seen on the list.
> 
> Is that clear enough?
>>     john
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update@alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>> 
>>   
>