Re: Add scripts to XForms input-mode script list in Appendix E (PR#106)

Hi Martin,

As we previously indicated to you, we noticed that the appendix was not marked
informative, which was an error we have now corrected.

We have deferred this issue for the CR transition because the appendix is
informative.  

We would like to have your help in producing an update to this appendix which
you previously wrote.  Ideally, it would not contain another set of long lists,
but rather would reference the appropriate technical specifications that contain
those lists, and make some indication that documents which supercede those
technical specifications may be used.  This will allow people to add more script
tokens over time as the relevant technical specifications are updated, without
having to also update the XForms recommendation.

Best regards,
John Boyer

> 
> Dear XForms Editors,
> 
> This is a Last Call Comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/.
> 
> Appendix E of this specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#mode),
> entitled "Input Modes", should be updated to be in sync with the most
> recent list of scripts from Unicode/ISO 10646.
> 
> A rough count (using the Unix 'wc' utilty) showed that about 15
> scripts are missing from the list of tokens at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms11/#mode-values.
> 
> A point-by-point comparison with
> http://www.unicode.org/Public/5.0.0/ucd/PropertyValueAliases.txt
> (look below the line "# Script (sc)") gave the following list
> (more than 15 because E.3.1 contains quite a few special values):
> (starting with lowercase and converting spaces to camelcase in
> line with the currently available tokens (e.g. canaidianAboriginal)).
> 
> balinese
> buginese
> coptic
> cypriot
> glagolitic
> kharoshthi
> limbu
> linearB
> nko
> osmanya
> phagsPa
> phoenician
> shavian
> sylotiNagri
> taiLe
> newTaiLue
> tifinagh
> ugaritic
> oldPersian
> cuneiform
> 
> This list of tokens can be included as is (with "Unicode script name"
> in the Comments column), but should be cross-checked to make sure
> I didn't miss anything. The text above the table can then be updated
> to say "The version of the Unicode Standard that these script name
> are taken from is 5.0." instead of "The version of the Unicode Standard
> that these script names are taken from is 3.2.".
> 
> Many of the scripts (e.g. Cunieform) are not necessarily what you
> would expect as your typical XForms input, but some of the tokens
> already available in XForms 1.0 also don't have a high probability
> of usage, and it's better to be complete than to leave something out
> that later may be needed.
> 
> Some people may raise the concern that adding these script tokens
> will force the spec to go to Last Call again. While this would be
> true for any genuinely new feature being added after Last Call,
> it is difficult to see why a new Last Call would be needed just
> because the list of scripts is being completed. No XForms implementation
> is forced to support all of these values anyway, but not including
> a value that's currently not supported would create a weird
> chicken-and-egg problem.
> 
> Regards,      Martin.
> 
> 
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 17:36:43 UTC