Re: [precis] shepherd review of draft-ietf-precis-mappings

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Fri, 12 June 2015 09:25 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 DE25D1A8A72 for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 9kECokNhihXz for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D13401A8A7D for <precis@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [77.72.226.113] (dyn-fg113.sth.netnod.se [77.72.226.113]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52FA61FFC5; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:25:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 11:25:13 +0200
Message-ID: <A72B7B6F-1CA3-4E7F-8126-C23CCE4B4A58@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <557A140B.9060203@andyet.net>
References: <557A140B.9060203@andyet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_FA1996EB-BD6D-420C-A991-3AEC9CE39ABC_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.1r5095)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/precis/uHrRA7yT6AtdM7V6n4K1PvAjfbc>
Cc: precis@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [precis] shepherd review of draft-ietf-precis-mappings
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:25:24 -0000

There might be geographical issues as well, and not only language. Or rather, if the language also have a geographic tag (that I do not remember what its name is) then it might be complete.

Example, in French, one do not have accents on the capital letters (well, one have if it is needed due to distinguish between words, if it is a name etc -- so it is optional), but do in Canada. Of course, one can say maybe that French in France is one language and French in Québéc is another, but...

You get the point.

So, I agree with you that one should probably treat the word "language" as only one example of a parameter in the "locale" definition that changes the behaviour of the function.

   Patrik

On 12 Jun 2015, at 1:04, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:

> With my document shepherd hat on, I just reviewed draft-ietf-precis-mappings. I have sent some editorial comments to the authors. I also found two more substantive issues...
>
> 1. The "local case mapping" method specified in Section 2.3 talks about locale and context. However, the example in the second paragraph is a matter of language, not locale:
>
> As an example of locale and context-dependent mapping, LATIN CAPITAL
> LETTER I ("I", U+0049) is normally mapped to LATIN SMALL LETTER I
> ("i", U+0069); however, if the case of Turkish (or one of several
> other languages), unless an I is before a dot_above, the character
> should be mapped to LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I (U+0131).
>
> As I understand it, locale (see Section 8 of RFC 6365) would refer to a particular region within a language-speaking community, such as Switzerland within the German-speaking areas.
>
> The SpecialCasing.txt file in the Unicode standard talks about language-sensitive mappings for the Lithuanian, Turkish, and Azeri languages. (It also talks about a language-insensitive mapping, i.e., context-dependent mapping, for Greek final sigma.) It does not talk about locale-dependent mappings for particular regions within any language-speaking communities.
>
> Therefore, I wonder if all mentions of locale in draft-ietf-precis-mappings really ought to be mentions of language. On reading the text in the document right now, I provisionally concluded that this switch would make sense, but I haven't thought carefully about every instance. And I would be curious to hear from the authors and working group about this issue.
>
> 2. Appendix B purports to describe why local case mapping needs to be an alternative to Unicode Default Case Mapping instead of being applied sequentially (the text mentions the possibility of applying local case mapping before Unicode Default Case Mapping - is that the only option, or should we say something about applying it after?).
>
> However, Appendix B only mentions eszett (U+00DF) and to my mind does not provide a complete argument for why local case mapping needs to be an alternative to Unicode Default Case Mapping. At the least, it might be valuable to mention the handling of characters other than eszett. I suppose the basic argument is already in Section 2.3, but if so then I think that Appendix B might have a misleading title.
>
> Other than these two issues, I think the document is in good shape (modulo some editorial adjustments).
>
> Peter
>
> -- 
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://andyet.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> precis mailing list
> precis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis