Re: [Last-Call] Opsdir last call review of draft-faltstrom-unicode12-03

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi Patrik,

In-line… with some snipping...

> On 3 Dec 2021, at 12:13, Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 1 Dec 2021, at 14:16, Tim Chown wrote:
> 
>> Hi Patrik,
>> 
>> First, I agree with what you and John say about getting this doc done.  Other responses inline...
>> 
>>> On 28 Nov 2021, at 13:52, Patrik Fältström <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 16 Nov 2021, at 14:38, Tim Chown via Datatracker wrote:

<snip>

>>>> The draft includes several Appendix sections, but these are not mentioned in
>>>> the document.  I think the context of their inclusion should be given.
>>> 
>>> If not the Table of Contents is enough I think I need some help. Do you mean I should add explicit references from the subsections of section 3 to the various appendices which makes things more explicit than what is in the Table of Contents?
>> 
>> I just find it surprising to see completely unreferenced Appendices in the document.  Why are they there if not referenced somewhere?  Some of them do not match to the changes discussed in section 3.
> 
> Hmm....I added this to the section titled "Notable Changes Between Unicode 6.0.0 and 12.0.0":
> 
>        Among the changes between the Unicode versions, most code
>        points that change derived property value change from
>        UNASSIGNED to PVALID or from UNASSIGNED to DISALLOWED. The
>        interesting changes in derived property values include other
>        changes. All changes between the major versions of Unicode can be
>        found in <xref target="Appendix-6.0.0"/>, <xref
>        target="Appendix-7.0.0"/>, <xref target="Appendix-8.0.0"/>,
>        <xref target="Appendix-9.0.0"/>, <xref
>        target="Appendix-10.0.0"/> and <xref
>        target="Appendix-11.0.0"/>.

Thanks.  Sorry if it seems pedantic to point out!

>>>> There are several sections which summarise the number of changes to characters
>>>> between specific versions.  It would be useful to include a reference to these
>>>> totals, where they are sourced from.   I found some summary numbers at
>>>> https://www.babelstone.co.uk/Unicode/HowMany.html, and I checked that the
>>>> “Assigned” totals there matched the totals for “PVALID + CONTEXTO/J and
>>>> DISALLOWED”, and these were correct against that source.  But I don’t know
>>>> where to check the CONTEXTO/J numbers; perhaps these 27 (2+25) items should be
>>>> listed in an appendix, or a specific reference given.
>>> 
>>> All changes are listed in the Appendices.
>> 
>> I don’t see where the 2+25 figures are taken from.
> 
> Unicode 6.0.0 already have code points with various derived property values. In the list of "changes from 6.0.0 to 7.0.0" I have written "CONTEXTJ did not change, at 2". To me this is crystal clear the number of code points with the derived property value CONTEXTJ is 2 in Unicode 7.0.0 as it was in Unicode 6.0.0. That it is 2 can be found in earlier RFCs or in the IANA registry.
> 
> I completely understand you are confused, but I do not know how to make this more clear.
> 
> If you *now* understand what the number 2 (and because of that 25 and 27) is coming from, can you suggest a change that will make this more clear?

OK, that’s fine, let’s leave it as is.

<snip>

>>>> 
> 
> Thanks for your patience!

Likewise - I’m happy for it to proceed now and my review switches to Ready.

Tim