Subject: Review of draft-ietf-idnabis-tables

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:50:44 -0700

I reviewed draft-ietf-idnabis-tables-07.    My comments are enclosed below. 

Technical

Section 5.1

   IANA is to keep a list of the derived property for the versions of

   Unicode that is released after (and including) version 5.1.  The

   derived property value is to be calculated according to the

   specifications in sections Section 2 and Section 3 and not by copying

   the non-normative table found in Appendix B.  

[BA] This seems to imply that IANA will do the calculation itself,  rather

Than just registering the results of a calculation made by someone else.  

Is that correct? 

Editorial

Section 1

  For example, a

   character can have its Unicode General_Category value change from So

   to Sm, or from Lo to Ll, without affecting the algorithm results.

   Moreover, even if such changes were to result, the BackwardCompatible

   list (Section 2.7) can be adjusted to ensure the stability of the

   results.

[BA] Lo and L1 are not defined until the next section.  Would it make sense
to define these terms earlier on? 

   Some code points need to be allowed in exceptional circumstances, but

   should be excluded in all other cases; these rules are also described

   in other documents.  The most notable of these are the the Join

[BA] "the the" -> "the"

Section 5.1

      in sections Section 2 and Section 3

[BA] Should this be "Sections 2 and 3"?

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:39:55 +0200

Thanks for the comments.

> Than just registering the results of a calculation made by someone  

The wg do not really care how the data at IANA is created. I have a  
discussion with IANA on more proper wording.

> to define these terms earlier on?

Let me have a look.

>   in other documents.  The most notable of these are the the Join

Thanks.

> [BA] Should this be "Sections 2 and 3"?

Yes, most certainly.

    Patrik