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

Hello Tim,

Many thanks for this.  I'd like to forward it to the i18n ig list (where the
group discusses technical issues).  I assume you have no objection?

RI



> -----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 Saturday, 24 January 2004 18:01:25 UTC