Re: [xmpp] I-D Action: draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-20.txt

[Sam Whited <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:28 PM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol Working Group of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Address Format
>         Author          : Peter Saint-Andre
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis-20.txt
>         Pages           : 25
>         Date            : 2015-03-23
>
> Abstract:
>    This document defines the address format for the Extensible Messaging
>    and Presence Protocol (XMPP), including support for code points
>    outside the ASCII range.  This document obsoletes RFC 6122.

>From the text:

> (e.g., under Unicode Normalization Form KC U+FE6B SMALL COMMERCIAL
> AT decomposes to U+0040 COMMERCIAL AT, although note that this
> decomposition does not occur under Unicode Normalization Form C,
> which is used in this specification).

Using an example which doesn't actually apply to the specification
strikes me as a bad idea. Though it's pretty clearly stated that it's
not actually applicable, this just seems unnecessary and confusing
(you'll end up with a lot of test suites with this as a failing test,
people emailing the various lists to ask about it, and finally them
re-reading and figuring it out).

This is a bit of a contrived problem, admittedly, but in the interest
of clarity and simplicity I still think it makes sense to change it.
Personally, I think it would be best to not have an example at all if
no relevant example can be found (I didn't see one while glancing
through the NFC definitions, but it was certainly not an exhaustive
search).

Best,
Sam



-- 
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3
https://blog.samwhited.com