W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > January 2004

FW: Your comments on the Character Model [C068-C072, C079]

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:33:11 -0000
To: "i18n IG" <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>, <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006201c3e400$2e5967d0$6401a8c0@w3cishida>


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] 
Sent: 24 January 2004 18:43
To: Richard Ishida
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Subject: Re: Your comments on the Character Model [C068-C072, C079]


> PLEASE REVIEW the decisions for the following additional comments and
> reply
> to us within the next two weeks at mailto:www-i18n-comments@w3.org  
> (copying
> w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org) to say whether you are satisfied with the decision
> taken.
>         C068, C069, C070, C071 C072, C079

C067: Satisfied
C068: Satisfied
C069: Satisfied
C070: Satisfied
C071:
Not satisfied; see  
http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/draft-fielding-uri- 
rfc2396bis-03.html#comparison-string

The point is that the phrase 'bit-for-bit' is misleading.  It's  
code-point-by-code-point; how these are encoded into bits is a red  
herring.

C072: Semi-satisfied.  Does the charmod contain a discussion of the  
subtle-but-nonzero differences between 10646 and Unicode?   I note that  
this is touched on in the response to C128, and the point that the  
Unicode spec is well-written, useful, available on-line or in an  
excellent book is also worth making.  Clearly this meta-reference stuff  
is material to charmod's readers.

C073: Satisfied
C074: Pending not-yet-made edit, but it sounds like we're probably OK
C079: Really a special case of C074, but satisfied.

I think that C071 and 072 might be worth a couple of minutes of the  
TAG's time. -Tim
Received on Monday, 26 January 2004 06:37:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:34 GMT