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

Re: Private Use Code Points: Disagreement with our approach

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:28:09 -0400
To: Misha.Wolf@reuters.com, Donald Eastlake 3rd <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, www-i18n-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <200209231428.09936.reagle@w3.org>


Now that's it's archive in the WG archives, please consider it "official" 
<smile/>.

On Monday 23 September 2002 01:31 pm, Misha.Wolf@reuters.com wrote:
> Sorry to be pedantic, but this comment [1] was submitted on behalf
> of the XML Sig WG.  What we need is a response on behalf of the WG.
> It is not clear whether Donald's response, which seems not to have
> been copied to the WG, has that status.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/charmod-lastcall2/#C034
>
> Thanks,
> Misha
>
> On 10/09/2002 22:51:39 Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
> > If the wording has been changed to SHOULD NOT, I don't plan to persue
> > this any further.
> >
> > Donald
> >
> > On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Martin Duerst wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:25:07 +0900
> > > From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
> > > To: reagle@w3.org, dee3@torque.pothole.com
> > > Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, www-i18n-comments@w3.org
> > > Subject: Private Use Code Points: Disagreement with our approach
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > --
> > ======================================================================
> >  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       dee3@torque.pothole.com
> >  155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
> >  Milford, MA 01757 USA                   Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------- ---
>         Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
> sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
> the views of Reuters Ltd.

-- 
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 14:28:17 GMT

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