Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case mapping in RFC 7613 and draft-ietf-precis-nickname
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 04 November 2015 20:05 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2731B33BC for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:05:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Hmnv1qiSzBHp for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:05:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E38B51B33BB for <precis@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:04:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1Zu4Id-000LFO-ES; Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:04:51 -0500
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:04:46 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <peter@andyet.net>, Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org>, Alexey Melnikov <Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <7407A8C7DB30384DF67C0EA5@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <563A261F.2040904@andyet.net>
References: <0347834EBDC481BD99BDBE67@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <56302E6D.5030901@andyet.net> <56312AAC.1000300@andyet.net> <56313616.8000801@andyet.net> <563143B9.7020707@andyet.net> <56383B2F.6080505@andyet.net> <D25E1ABD.673A9%fsb@thefsb.org> <DB8A468B42BB20CDC0E06929@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <563A261F.2040904@andyet.net>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/precis/CrX1nUA_PDwvFegc4ND6aR8egLc>
Cc: precis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case mapping in RFC 7613 and draft-ietf-precis-nickname
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/precis/>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 20:05:04 -0000
--On Wednesday, November 04, 2015 08:37 -0700 Peter Saint-Andre <peter@andyet.net> wrote: >> I could take a shot at a paragraph explaining that if it is >> what people want. Otherwise, I'd be very careful about >> getting further into that space than the present text goes. >> Personally, I think the text is still dancing around the >> issue too much, rather than addressing it, but I may be in >> the rough. > > That may be. We could simply remove the offending sentence: >... > NEW > > > 3. Case Mapping Rule: Unicode Default Case Folding MUST > be applied, > as defined in the Unicode Standard [Unicode] (at the > time of this > writing, the algorithm is specified in Chapter 3 of > [Unicode7.0]). In applications that prohibit > conflicting > nicknames, this rule helps to reduce the possibility of > confusion by ensuring that nicknames differing only by > case > (e.g., "stpeter" vs. "StPeter") would not be presented > to a > human user at the same time. > > If we do that, we're no longer dancing around issues. Different dance, I think, but we may have different objectives. If we keep the explanatory text, it should be accurate. The sentence you removed, by itself, is misleading, so, in that sense, getting rid of it improves accuracy and is an improvement. On the other hand, if we remove the explanation, we encourage those who build libraries to simply apply toCaseFold and believe they don't need to think further about the situation and those who build user-facing systems to call those libraries and do the same thing, secure in the belief that the IETF told them things would be ok. The problem remains that, while toCaseFold works well and as predicted in most locales, in "minority" locales and script and language contexts, it produces results that are surprising and that may be bizarre. It doesn't even catch/match all of the cases one would prefer as well as matching some things that shouldn't be (probably the more harmless of the two types of errors). let me say this strongly: unless the IETF is willing to take the position that we are interested in and supporting an Internet only for "majority" languages and writing systems ("majority" defined by "what works well with Unicode generally and toCaseFold in particular), then a document like this almost certainly needed a paragraph warning about local issues and sensitivities. I can imagine several ways to do that and have suggested outlines for some of them. But just dropping text to avoid saying anything wrong except by implication doesn't do much for me, largely because I believe that an IETF that takes such a position would have outlived its usefulness to the global Internet community. john
- [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case mappi… Tom Worster
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… John C Klensin
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Tom Worster
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… John C Klensin
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… John C Klensin
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… John C Klensin
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Tom Worster
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… John C Klensin
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Tom Worster
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… Tom Worster
- Re: [precis] Ambiguity in specification of case m… John C Klensin