Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue 63: Replace %xgh with U+00gh in text

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:45:03 -0600

I have no objection to the general concept of using Unicode notation for 
character references.

Martin J. Dürst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> replied to Kent:

>> Still nit-picking: I'm not too keen on including a page number. This 
>> is just as valid for other editions of TUS.
>
> Fine with me to leave that out.

I agree rather strongly with leaving out the page numbers, unless we 
plan to add page numbers or chapter-and-verse references to all our 
other citations.

>> And does the reference have to be placed so awkwardly?
>
> No. I just left it where it was before. We didn't get a request to 
> move the place of the reference. But I would be fine with ("-", U+002D 
> [Unicode]) or so, if that looks better to you.

I'd prefer to add a blanket explanation on or before the first usage of 
Unicode notation, maybe even as early as the Introduction (next to the 
RFC 2119 boilerplate), since it will be needed as early as the first 
paragraph of Section 2.1.  How about something like:

"Character references in the form U+xxxx represent characters from the 
[Unicode] repertoire."

Then let the embedded reference to [Unicode] lead the reader toward the 
formal definition.  (Please feel very free to improve upon this wording; 
I know it's not the best.)

Note also that the draft already uses U+ notation in Section 2.1.1, with 
no special citation.  The blanket explanation would also cover that 
usage.

I concur with Kent that Unicode does use < > to enclose a sequence of U+ 
characters, and I find this syntax easy to read and understand, but I 
wouldn't insist on it if IETF has some reason not to use it.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ