Re: Private Use Code Points: Disagreement with our approach

If the wording has been changed to SHOULD NOT, I don't plan to persue 
this any further.

Donald

On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Martin Duerst wrote:

> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 12:25:07 +0900
> From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
> To: reagle@w3.org, dee3@torque.pothole.com
> Cc: w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org, www-i18n-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Private Use Code Points: Disagreement with our approach
> 
> Hello Joseph, Donald,
> 
> I'm currently working on closing issue C034 on the
> Character Model last call:
> http://www.w3.org/International/Group/2002/charmod-lc/#C034
> 
> This says:
> (my comments indicated by ####)
> 
>  >>>>
>      Private Use Code Points: Disagreement with our approach
> 
>      * Comment (received 2002-05-24) -- Re: 2nd Last Call for the
>        Character Model for the WWW
> 
>        I've tried to reconcile our original comments [1], your latest
>        spec [2], and the disposition of issues [3]. Fortunately, we had
>        few comments and most were FYI but I fear I've failed on some of
>        the substantive ones.
> 
>        [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-i18n-comments/2001Feb/0017
> 
>        [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430
> 
>        [3] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-lc/
> 
>        For instance, LCC-117 [4] was summarized as, "Section 3.6.2 (Private
>        Use Code Points): Disagreement with our approach". [5] LCI-95's
>        disposition is "N - Y S". I presume this means you don't agree with
>        the comment, there's no change, the issue is closed, and it was a
>        substantive issue.
> 
> #### Yes, your interpretation is correct. We told you about the
> #### rejection in [8], and you accepted it in [9] (although you
> #### deferred to Donald as this being his comment, but we never
> #### heard from Donald at all).
> 
>        But I don't know if we didn't explain ourselves
>        well, or why you disagreed?
> 
> #### You explained yourself well, and we explained our disagreement in [8].
> 
>        So when I consider the original text
>        "Specifications MUST NOT provide mechanisms for private agreement
>        between parties." [6] I can see was was of concern. When I check
>        the latest version I see "Specifications SHOULD NOT provide mechanisms
>        for agreement on private use code points between parties and MUST NOT
>        require the use of such mechanisms." [7]
> 
> #### The specification has changed due to requests from others.
> #### Our understanding was that this change wasn't in conflict with
> #### your comment, so we didn't contact you again.
> 
>        So that seems to have
>        changed -- after a lot of time and confusion on my part?!
> 
> #### Sorry for the confusion
> 
>        [4] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-lc/#LCC-117
>        [5] http://www.w3.org/International/Group/charmod-lc/#LCI-95
>        [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-charmod-20010126/#sec-Encodings
>        [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-charmod-20020430/#sec-PrivateUse
> 
>      * We don't know what is being requested.
>  >>>>
> 
> If the only thing that is being requested is clarification, then
> I hope the explanations above are satisfactory. If more is requested,
> then please clarify exactly what this is, at your earliest convenience.
> 
> 
> Regards,     Martin.
> 
> [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JulSep/0191.html
> [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2001JulSep/0216.html
> 
> 

-- 
======================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd                       dee3@torque.pothole.com
 155 Beaver Street              +1-508-634-2066(h) +1-508-851-8280(w)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA                   Donald.Eastlake@motorola.com

Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 17:51:44 UTC