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

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

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!)

> >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.

> >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.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]