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

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

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:42:32 -0800
Message-Id: <11D362D4-4E9D-11D8-B206-000A95A51C9E@textuality.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org <www-tag@w3.org>
To: "Richard Ishida" <ishida@w3.org>
> 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 Saturday, 24 January 2004 13:49:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT