- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:08:57 +0900
- To: Internationalization Core Working Group <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
- CC: Internationalization Core Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Hello Richard, On 2012/03/21 21:52, Internationalization Core Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > I18N-ISSUE-149: Code point definition [Encoding-prep] > > http://www.w3.org/International/track/issues/149 > > Raised by: Richard Ishida > On product: Encoding-prep > > "A code point is a Unicode code point and is referenced as a four-or-more digit hexadecimal value, typically preceded by "U+". E.g. U+0020." > > This should probably say "in this specification", since there is no general requirement that a code point use a minimum of four digits. I think the "in this specification" is already implicitly there, because a code point could be something else than a Unicode code point. In actual words, rather than changing it to: "A code point is a Unicode code point and in this specification is referenced as a four-or-more digit hexadecimal value, typically preceded by "U+". E.g. U+0020." one would better write: "In this specification, a code point is a Unicode code point and is referenced as a four-or-more digit hexadecimal value, typically preceded by "U+". E.g. U+0020." but then one sees that this is probably obvious, unless one wants to add "in this specification" to almost every sentence of a spec. Also please note that with the U+ prefix, it's always four or more hex digits. As a general remark, I think our review should concentrate on the big picture (do we want more than one definition of what each encoding is on the Internet, and if not, how can we avoid it?) rather than on minute wording details such as above. Regards, Martin.
Received on Friday, 23 March 2012 06:34:40 UTC