Re: Private Use Code Points: Disagreement with our approach

Sorry to be pedantic, but this comment [1] was submitted on behalf
of the XML Sig WG.  What we need is a response on behalf of the WG.
It is not clear whether Donald's response, which seems not to have
been copied to the WG, has that status.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/charmod-lastcall2/#C034

Thanks,
Misha


On 10/09/2002 22:51:39 Donald Eastlake 3rd wrote:
> 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
>



------------------------------------------------------------- ---
        Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of  the  individual
sender,  except  where  the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.

Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 13:42:22 UTC