W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > August 2002

Private Use Code Points: Disagreement with our approach

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:25:07 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20020826120654.021eb8b8@localhost>
To: reagle@w3.org, dee3@torque.pothole.com
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, www-i18n-comments@w3.org

Hello Joseph, Donald,

I'm currently working on closing issue C034 on the
Character Model last call:
http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/#C034

This says:
(my comments indicated by ####)

 >>>>
     Private Use Code Points: Disagreement with our approach

     * Comment (received 2002-05-24) -- Re: 2nd Last Call for the
       Character Model for the WWW

       I've tried to reconcile our original comments [1], your latest
       spec [2], and the disposition of issues [3]. Fortunately, we had
       few comments and most were FYI but I fear I've failed on some of
       the substantive ones.

       [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2001Feb/0017

       [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430

       [3] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-lc/

       For instance, LCC-117 [4] was summarized as, "Section 3.6.2 (Private
       Use Code Points): Disagreement with our approach". [5] LCI-95's
       disposition is "N - Y S". I presume this means you don't agree with
       the comment, there's no change, the issue is closed, and it was a
       substantive issue.

#### Yes, your interpretation is correct. We told you about the
#### rejection in [8], and you accepted it in [9] (although you
#### deferred to Donald as this being his comment, but we never
#### heard from Donald at all).

       But I don't know if we didn't explain ourselves
       well, or why you disagreed?

#### You explained yourself well, and we explained our disagreement in [8].

       So when I consider the original text
       "Specifications MUST NOT provide mechanisms for private agreement
       between parties." [6] I can see was was of concern. When I check
       the latest version I see "Specifications SHOULD NOT provide mechanisms
       for agreement on private use code points between parties and MUST NOT
       require the use of such mechanisms." [7]

#### The specification has changed due to requests from others.
#### Our understanding was that this change wasn't in conflict with
#### your comment, so we didn't contact you again.

       So that seems to have
       changed -- after a lot of time and confusion on my part?!

#### Sorry for the confusion

       [4] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-lc/#LCC-117
       [5] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-lc/#LCI-95
       [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-charmod-20010126/#sec-Encodings
       [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-PrivateUse

     * We don't know what is being requested.
 >>>>

If the only thing that is being requested is clarification, then
I hope the explanations above are satisfactory. If more is requested,
then please clarify exactly what this is, at your earliest convenience.


Regards,     Martin.

[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JulSep/0191.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JulSep/0216.html
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 03:02:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:32 GMT