Subject: RE: [idn] Nameprep-01 released

From: Karlsson Kent - keka <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:32:53 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [mailto:[email-masked]]
...
> Greetings again. The new version of the nameprep document can be 
> found at <http://www.i-d-n.net/draft/draft-ietf-idn-nameprep-01.txt> 

The mapping list at the end is nearly unreviewable, since it does
not contain the character names (as comments), just the codes.
Compare Unicode tables, which have character names as comments
(at least).  I don't think it is each revewer's responsability
to produce name comments (or whatever) to be able to review the
document.

The "prohibited character[s] list", list code points, many of
which are *not* characters, but are specifically "not-a-character"s,
or are reserved for UTF-16 ("surrogates"; which are not characters
either).

The "unassigned character[s] list" is quite obviously an
"(as yet) unassigned code points list" (which is hard to review
since no character names can be made available). It also uses
6 hexadecimal digits for the BMP range, which is (will not) be
an approved notation according to Unicode and 10646.

		Kind regards
		/kent k

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:59:18 -0800

At 5:32 PM +0100 1/16/01, Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
>(at least).

You are quite correct. In fact, for the mappings from section 3.1 and 
3.2, I had to take out the character names. We chose to do this 
because, with character names, many lines ran over 80 columns and 
caused wrapping problems for some readers.

>   I don't think it is each revewer's responsability

This is a fair criticism. I'll generate the tables with the names in 
the columns separately from the draft itself, and ask Marc put them 
on the WG's web site. Look for them later today or tomorrow.

>or are reserved for UTF-16 ("surrogates"; which are not characters

Yes: that is what sections 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 describe. Are you saying 
that we should rename the appendix to "prohibited codepoints", or is 
there some other issue you are pointing towards?

>an approved notation according to Unicode and 10646.

Good catch; I'll fix that in the -02 draft.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium