Subject: Re: [precis] U+1E9B

From: "Martin J. Dürst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2014 20:25:36 +0900

On 2014/08/30 04:41, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:

> This brings up another point: it probably makes sense to delete the
> codepoint table from the precis-framework specification and to create
> the initial registration in a better way (see discussion in other
> threads). It was helpful scaffolding, but probably has outlived its
> usefulness.

One alternative is to have two separate drafts, the actual framework and 
the data tables. That's what the LTRU WG used for language subtags, in 
two iterations. Just an idea.

Regards,   Martin.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 06:58:19 -0600

> two iterations. Just an idea.

Yes, I was thinking about moving the table to an informational draft for 
purposes of traceability.

Peter

---

From: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:46:46 +0000

>purposes of traceability.

+1

-- 
Joe Hildebrand