- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 22:43:06 +0900
- To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 21:27:43 +0900, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote: > Felix, > > I don't think it should take long to search for duplicates. We must > also add these comments to the last call table, so that we have a > complete record of comments and responses. This is important for the > transition of the document to CR. Just FYI: Richard and me just talked and decided that I will add the comments of the QT people to the last call table, and at the same time we will handle them first. It's possible to satisfy everybody :) Regards, Felix. > RI > > > ============ > Richard Ishida > Internationalization Lead > W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) > > http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/ > http://www.w3.org/International/ > http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/ > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/ > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-i18n-core-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki >> Sent: 12 January 2006 03:12 >> To: public-i18n-core@w3.org >> Subject: Fwd: Comments on Character Model for the World Wide >> Web 1.0: Normalization >> >> Hi all, >> >> This is the approved version of the XQuery / XSL Working >> Group comments. >> If you have a look at them, you see that they are very closly >> related to the progress of the QT specifications. Most of >> them are now in canidate recommendation stage. If we still >> want to have an influence on the specs before they become >> recs, we should reply fast. Hence, I propose to postpone >> Francois action item to look for dublicates in the previous >> last call, and talk about the comments during the teleconfs >> in the next week. >> >> Felix >> >> ------- Forwarded message ------- >> From: "Jim Melton" <jim.melton@acm.org> >> To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org >> Cc: w3c-xsl-query@w3.org, "C. Michael Sperberg-McQueen" >> <cmsmcq@acm.org> >> Subject: Comments on Character Model for the World Wide Web 1.0: >> Normalization >> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 05:32:12 +0900 >> >> Gentlepeople, >> >> A joint teleconference of the XML Query Working Group and the >> XSL Working Group has approved the following as their formal >> comments on the document entitled Character Model for the >> World Wide Web 1.0: >> Normalization. (Please note that these comments are >> substantially the same as the personal comments that I sent >> to you in late December, 2005, the principal change being the >> addition of an example in point (3) below.) >> >> (1) In section 2, Conformance, the list of specification >> conformance criteria include: "make it a conformance >> requirement for implementations to conform to this document", >> and "make it a conformance requirement for content to conform >> to this document". Would you clarify (perhaps only as a >> response to this message) whether or not the XQuery 1.0, >> XPath 2.0, and XSLT 2.0 suite of specifications would be >> cited as non-conforming to this specification if (as I >> believe to be the case) they do not contain an explicit >> statement of those two criteria? >> >> (2) In section 3.2.3, Include-normalized text, bullet 2 uses >> the phrase "clause 1 above". I believe that most readers >> will better understand your meaning if you replace that with >> "bullet 1 above" or "list item 1 above". To many readers, >> the word "clause" refers either to a major subdivision of a >> document (e.g., a chapter) or to a relatively short phrase >> such as a portion of a sentence (e.g., the noun clause). >> >> (3) In section 3.2.4, Fully-normalized text, first numbered >> list, bullet 1 says that a composing character is "the second >> character in the canonical decomposition mapping of some >> character". There are characters in Unicode that are made of >> a "base character" plus two or more composing characters; >> therefore, "a composing character" would be "each character >> after the first in the canonical decomposition mapping of >> some character". One example of such a character would seem >> to be U+1FA4 GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA WITH PSILI AND OXIA AND >> YPOGEGRAMMENI, the canonical decomposition of which is >> U+03C9 GREEK SMALL LETTER OMEGA + U+0313 COMBINING COMMA >> ABOVE + U+0301 >> COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT + U+0345 COMBINING GREEK YPOGEGRAMMENI. >> >> (4) In section 3.2.4, Fully-normalized text, first numbered >> list, bullet 1 refers to "some character that is not listed >> in the Composition Exclusion Table defined in [UTR #15]". >> However, following the link to the most recent version of UTR >> #15, the section of that document whose title is "Composition >> Exclusion Table" contains neither a table nor a list of >> characters. While this is an apparent failure of UTF #15, >> the dependence on that section of UTR #15 cascades that >> failure into Normalization. However, there is (in section 6 >> of UTF #15) a (not terribly >> obvious) reference to "the Composition Exclusion Table >> [Exclusions]". The References entry with that name >> (Exclusions) contains pointers to several versions of such a >> table, the latest of which is available at >> <http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/CompositionExclusions.t >> xt>http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/CompositionExclusions.txt >> . It would have seemed a Very Good Idea for Normalization to >> point directly to this file, perhaps in addition to the >> reference directly to UTF >> #16 section 6. >> >> (5) In section 3.2.4, Fully-normalized text, second numbered >> list, bullet 2 uses the phrase "clause 1 above". I believe >> that most readers will better understand your meaning if you >> replace that with "bullet 1 above" or "list item 1 above". >> To many readers, the word "clause" refers either to a major >> subdivision of a document (e.g., a chapter) or to a >> relatively short phrase such as a portion of a sentence >> (e.g., the noun clause). >> >> (6) In section 3.2.4, Fully-normalized text, the paragraph >> beginning "Identification of the constructs..." includes the >> statement that "it is the responsibility of the specification >> for a language to specify exactly what constitutes a relevant >> construct". Could you please clarify whether or not the >> XQuery 1.0, XPath 2.0, and XSLT 2.0 suite of specifications >> would be cited as non-conforming to this specification if (as >> I believe to be the case) they do not contain any such >> explicit specification? >> >> (7) In section 3.2.7, Certified and suspect text, the NOTE >> begins with the statement "To normalize text, it is in >> general sufficient to store the last seen character...". >> Perhaps I've missed something important earlier in this >> specification, but I have no idea what that statement means. >> One way of explaining it is to use the example of text "C >> combining-cedilla". When processing that text, I store the >> last seen character (combining-cedilla). And, violá, the >> text is normalized. But that obviously is not the case. So >> what does that statement mean? Could it be expressed in a >> less ambiguous manner? >> >> (8) In section 3.4, Responsibility for normalization, item >> C303 includes an Example that uses the notations "xf:concat" >> and "xf:substring". In both cases (because this document >> does not define any namespace prefixes associated with the >> namespace name associated with XPath/XQuery functions), the >> "xf" should be replaced with "fn", which is the conventional >> prefix used for that namespace. >> >> (9) In section 4, String identity matching, item C312, list >> item 1 includes the statement "In accordance with section >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-charmod-norm-20051027/#sec-Norma > lization>3 >> Normalization, this step MUST be performed by the producers >> of the strings to be compared." But section 3 does not make >> such a requirement (it did so in earlier drafts, but has been >> changed in this draft). At the very least, that use of >> "MUST" must (pun intended) be replaced by "SHOULD". >> Furthermore, the requirement to use "Early uniform >> normalization" might be correct because of the use of "as if" >> in the preceding paragraph, but (as section 3 makes clear) >> late normalization will produce identical results. >> >> (10) In appendix A, the reference to XQuery Operators >> includes an outdated list of editors. Jonathan Robie is no >> longer cited as an editor of that specification. >> Furthermore, the most recent edition is now dated 4 November, >> 2005, and is a Candidate Recommendation. (Of course, because >> Normalization was published earlier than that date, you could >> not have known this fact; the next publication of >> Normalization should make this >> change.) >> >> (11) In Appendix B, the final NOTE: says that certain >> characters may be displayed as a blank or as a blank >> rectangle. In some situations (e.g., Firefox 1.0.4 on my >> system without any font that covers Sinhala, a question mark >> ("?") is displayed. It might be appropriate to include that >> possibility in this NOTE. >> >> >> Hope this helps, >> Jim >> >> ============================================================== >> ========== >> Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL) Phone: >> +1.801.942.0144 >> Co-Chair, W3C XML Query WG; F&O (etc.) editor Fax : >> +1.801.942.3345 >> Oracle Corporation Oracle Email: jim dot melton at >> oracle dot com >> 1930 Viscounti Drive Standards email: jim dot melton at >> acm dot org >> Sandy, UT 84093-1063 USA Personal email: jim at >> melton dot name >> ============================================================== >> ========== >> = Facts are facts. But any opinions expressed are the >> opinions = >> = only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of >> anybody = >> = else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues >> at hand. = >> ============================================================== >> ========== >> ============================================================== >> ========== >> Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL) Phone: >> +1.801.942.0144 >> Co-Chair, W3C XML Query WG; F&O (etc.) editor Fax : >> +1.801.942.3345 >> Oracle Corporation Oracle Email: jim dot melton at >> oracle dot com >> 1930 Viscounti Drive Standards email: jim dot melton at >> acm dot org >> Sandy, UT 84093-1063 USA Personal email: jim at >> melton dot name >> ============================================================== >> ========== >> = Facts are facts. But any opinions expressed are the >> opinions = >> = only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of >> anybody = >> = else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues >> at hand. = >> ============================================================== >> ========== >> >> >
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 13:43:21 UTC