Re: Feedback on Unicode Technical Standard #46

Thanks for the feedback.

Mark


On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 09:38, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote:

> Hello Mark,
>
> Here is my personal feedback on Unicode IDNA Compatible Preprocessing.
>  Mostly it is editorial. It is based on Version 2 (draft 2). (I had several
> other comments which have already been addressed in this version.)
>
> [1] Note one too many s's in the title.
>

got it; someone else reported that.

>
> [2] I found it occasionally confusing that the word 'map' is used in
> different ways.  In some places it is used to mean 'normalize', and in
> others 'convert to punycode'.   Eg.
>
> "Transforming (mapping) a Unicode string to remove case and other variant
> differences. " [I would prefer '(normalizing')]
>
> "Both map a Unicode for a domain name in a URL (like  http://öbb.at<http://xn--bb-eka.at>)
> to the Punycode version "
>
> There are some places where it isn't clear in the text whether the issue
> centres around the normalization process or the mapping to punycode.  I'd
> like to see different terms used for these operations.
>
>
> [3] "Both map a Unicode for a domain name in a URL (like  http://öbb.at<http://xn--bb-eka.at>)
> to the Punycode version (like http://xn--bb-eka.at). "
> => "Both map a non-ASCII label for a domain name ..."
>

I think that is reasonable, but we have to stay away from "normalization",
since that is a loaded term in a Unicode context.

>
> [4] " Map  http://ÖBB.at <http://xn--bb-eka.at> to  http://øbb.at<http://xn--bb-kka.at>"
> I think the ø should be ö
>

Got it.

>
> [5] "For more information, see the Mapping document in [IDNA2008]."
>
> Please provide a more direct link.  I couldn't find this quickly.
>

The links for those documents are not final yet.

>
> [6] "IDNA2008 does define a particular mapping, but it is not normative,
> and does not attempt to be compatible with IDNA2003."
>
> My initial reaction to reading that is that this document ought to discuss
> how that mapping is different from that proposed in this document, and why
> this is better.
>

The compatibility *is* the reason that it is better. If that isn't clear
from other parts of the document, then we need at least some pointers.

>
> [7] "The label must not begin with a combining mark, that is: [:gc=M:]"
>
> The notation at the end of the sentence has not been introduced, and for
> some will be obscure.  I suggest replacing it with text for this section.
>  Same for "[:Join_Control:] "
>

I'll move the notation info up.

>
> [8] "Major improvement in making process of updating to future Unicode
> versions mostly-automatically"
> => ".. mostly automatic"
>

got it.

>
> [9] I think it would be useful to have a section in the earlier part of the
> document that explains how subtractions are dealt with, and what are the
> implications of that.  There is a tangential reference in the faq to
> symbols, but not much else, as far as I can see.
>

I'm not quite clear what you mean by this.

>
>
> Hope that helps,
>

Yes, thanks!


> RI
>
>
> ============
> Richard Ishida
> Internationalization Lead
> W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
>
> http://www.w3.org/International/
> http://rishida.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>