W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > May 2004

RE: draft-duerst-iri-07.txt: 2 week mailing list last call

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:54:40 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20040518173542.05fb5008@localhost>
To: "Michel Suignard" <michelsu@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-iri@w3.org>

Hello Michel,

I have listed this as issue ISO-Uni-ref-34.

At 09:45 04/05/14 -0700, Michel Suignard wrote:

> > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@w3.org]
> >
> > Michel, what do you think? Can you have a look at it?
> > I guess the reference to 10646 may also need updating,
> > can you give me the newest version?
>
>Martin in the normative reference section please update as follows:
>
>  [ISO10646]   ISO/IEC 10646:2003
>               International Organization for Standardization,
>               "Information Technology - Universal Multiple-Octet Coded
>               Character Set (UCS), December 2003.
>
>    [UNI9]     Davis, M., "The Bidirectional Algorithm", Unicode Standard
>               Annex #9, March 2004,
><http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/tr9-13.html>.
>
>    [UNIV4]    The Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Standard, Version
>               4.01",

I think this should be 4.0.1, yes?


>March 2004, defined by: The Unicode Standard,
>Version 4.0
>               (Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2003. ISBN 0-321-18578-1),
>               as amended by Unicode 4.0.1
>(http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.1/).
>
>    [UTR15]    Davis, M. and M. Duerst, "Unicode Normalization Forms",
>               Unicode Standard Annex #15, April 2003,
><http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/tr15-23.html>.
>
>
>I updated the link to 10646 to the latest edition which was just
>published by ISO. Technically it is the same as before, but that edition
>merge the two parts.

Thanks. This simplifies a lot.


>You should make sure that the normative reference to the Unicode webd
>sites are dated, one of your previous links [UNI9] went to the 'latest'
>one which is not proper for normative references.

Well yes. But for the record, my personal expectation would be
that the IRI spec follows updates of these other specs in the
future. In most cases, the changes only deal with edge cases
anyway. Of course, we have to make sure that we take this
decision explicitly in each case, so that we can assess
the impact.


>The HTML version of
>the IRI draft should also show explicitly the link values, which it
>doesn't as of now.

If you know what option to set in xml2rfc, I'll do it.
Otherwise, I don't want to spend the time, because the HTML
version is just a sideline. What counts for the IETF is the
text/plain version.


>Unicode 4.01 still use the same repertoire as
>10646:2003, so we are good on that part.

I have marked this issue as tentatively closed.
Can you please do another cross-check?

Regards,    Martin.
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2004 04:55:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:51:53 GMT