Subject: [precis] Mappings document's open issues

From: Takahiro Nemoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:40:54 +0900

Dear all,

Yoneya-san and I listed open issues for draft-ietf-precis-mappings.
Please read and give your comments/suggestions.

Followings are current mappings document's open issues.

  1.  Whether is local case mapping belong in additional mappings in precis framework?
  2.  If local case mapping belong in precis framework, it's necessary to specify mapping order 
      as local case mapping then case mapping.
      Because it makes no sense to perform local case mapping after case mapping.
  3.  Handling order of precis framework and precis mappings is ambiguous.  
      It's necessary to define the order in precis framework or in this document or in both documents.

And followings are authors’ recommended solutions.

  1.  Additional mapping should be mappings which are not included in Mappings document.
  2.  Handling order is Mappings document then processes in precis framework document.
  3.  The order should be defined in both documents.

Regards,
Nemo

--
Takahiro Nemoto
[email-masked]

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:52:55 -0700

Hi Nemo, thanks for raising these open issues. I need to read
draft-ietf-precis-mappings-01 again quite carefully, but here is some
quick feedback.

On 2/16/13 7:40 PM, Takahiro Nemoto wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Yoneya-san and I listed open issues for
> draft-ietf-precis-mappings. Please read and give your
> comments/suggestions.
> 

The "additional mapping" sections of the framework document do not
specify what those mappings might be (e.g., local case mapping,
special mapping, delimiter mapping, width mapping). Do you suggest
that we add those particular mappings to the framework?

> 2.  If local case mapping belong in precis framework, it's
> necessary to specify mapping order as local case mapping then case
> mapping.

It is true that we need to specify the order of mappings. This is the
case no matter whether local case mapping (and the other "additional
mappings") is specified in the framework or elsewhere.

> Because it makes no sense to perform local case mapping after case

I agree.

> 3.  Handling order of precis framework and precis mappings is
> ambiguous. It's necessary to define the order in precis framework
> or in this document or in both documents.
> 

Do you mean "in framework document"?

> 2.  Handling order is Mappings document then processes in precis

Agreed. That's not what the framework document says right now (at the
end of Section 3.1):

   NOTE: In order to ensure proper comparison, any normalization MUST be
   completed before the application of additional mappings or the
   process of checking whether a code point is valid, disallowed, or
   unassigned.

> 3.  The order should be defined in both documents.

That seems like a good idea, although I think the framework ought to
be the guiding document.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Takahiro Nemoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:41:06 +0900

Hello Peter-san, thank you for your feedback.
Our comment is following. Please make sure.

> that we add those particular mappings to the framework?
No, we don't.
We think those particular mappings, that are described in mappings document, 
are pre-preparation process performed before the framework like RFC5895.

> mappings") is specified in the framework or elsewhere.
Thanks. We already specified the order in mappings document.

> Do you mean "in framework document"?
No, we don't. 
We think additional mapping of framework is mappings other than in mappings document.

>   process of checking whether a code point is valid, disallowed, or
Thanks.

> That seems like a good idea, although I think the framework ought to
Do you mean "the mappings document" ought to be the guiding document?

Regards,
Nemo

--
Takahiro Nemoto
[email-masked]