Re: [precis] WGLC: draft-ietf-precis-framework-09.txt

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 10/8/13 10:23 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:36:31PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> I take it you're suggesting that we add a bit explaining that PRECIS
>> does *not* include a way to specify the locale for purposes of
>> restricting the range of codepoints that are allowed in a given
>> profile?
> 
> Because I'm not as clever as you, it hadn't occurred to me to suggest
> that exactly.  But that might well be another way to cope with the
> topic: "Yeah, we know you want this.  If you really want it, you need
> a special-purpose internationalization framework, and not a
> general-purpose one."  The more I think about it, the more I think
> that's true.  The user's linguistic environment has so many
> tightly-bound implications for an application that if you really need
> to know about it, your application needs to get dirty.  (Come to think
> of it, this is another nice way of explaining the IDN problem around
> this sort of request too.  Thanks!)

Something along those lines sounds good.

>>> clear how useful such a class would be.  In any case, because of the
>>> ability to subclass FreeformClass, a protocol needing something more
>>> particular is always able to create it."  I don't really care about
>>> this; it was just something that struck me on the way by.
>> OK, I will try to find better wording, or just reuse what you've sent.
> 
> It could be that, with your other proposal (in another thread) about
> getting rid of subclassing and making it all use profiles, this point
> will find a more natural expression.

Perchance. :-)

>>> In section 6.7, I want to make sure we're ok with following IDNA2008's
>>> lead on U+19DA, which moved from PVALID to DISALLOWED in Unicode 6.0.
>>> In the precis case, it's FREE_PVAL.  I think that's fine, but I just
>>> want to call attention.
>> Given that we're defining PRECIS in terms of Unicode 6.2, it seems
>> that it might be more appropriate to make it DISALLOWED. But I don't
>> have a strong feeling about that.
> 
> Well, this was exactly my point.  If we do that, we really _are_
> clearly treating at least one character differently than IDNA does.
> In that case, we need to open the description in the text to point out
> the difference.  Given the plain fact that U+19DA is so obscure as to
> be practically irrelevant, I don't want to make a big deal.  But I
> guess being picky about the details in this case allows us to see
> where the seams are, and that's probably a good thing for the WG to
> pay attention to.

It seems to me best not to special-case this character.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/