Subject: [precis] next steps

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:35:20 -0600

This evening I plan to submit:

draft-ietf-precis-framework-18
draft-saintandre-precis-codepoints-00

It is likely that framework-18 will not address every issue that John 
Klensin raised in his message of April 24:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis/current/msg00749.html

However, in the interest of making progress I think it will be useful to 
address the larger issues at this time, then submit a revised I-D that 
addresses the smaller issues.

Peter

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 16:08:59 -0400

--On Tuesday, September 02, 2014 19:35 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> It is likely that framework-18 will not address every issue
> that John Klensin raised in his message of April 24:
> 
> However, in the interest of making progress I think it will be
> useful to address the larger issues at this time, then submit
> a revised I-D that addresses the smaller issues.

Seems sensible to me.  I'll try to start working through the new
version of framework RSN.

Questions/comments about "codepoints" and your intent: 

First, I think having the tables separate and unambiguously
illustrative and Informational, is a desirable step.  Second,
because I'm still concerned about U+08A1 (for those who don't
know why, see discussion on IDNA list and elsewhere), I looked
it up and found "<reserved>".  That is consistent with my
preference at the moment but:

Your explanation in Section 1 says that this is based strictly
on Unicode 7.0.  If calculated according to the existing rules
and Unicode 7.0, it is clearly assigned.  I think it is valid
and has a category, probably PVALID, there is nothing
"UNASSIGNED" about it.

Editorial recommendation: Recognizing the line length limits, I
think it would be desirable to at least try to spell out the
script names or, if that is not impossible, to provide a script
name <-> abbreviation table.  It will make things much easier to
find it people go looking for the characters in a script that
are usable.  I assume that would be a common case.

     john

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 19:29:22 -0600

On 9/3/14, 2:08 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> on Unicode 7.0.

Actually I just copied over the table from the framework draft and we 
last ran our respective code against Unicode 6.3, so we'll need to 
recalculate the table. I was a bit too quick about updating the 
explanatory text. My apologies.

> If calculated according to the existing rules

And there are other changes, since Unicode 7.0 added 2,834 new 
characters according to http://unicode.org/versions/Unicode7.0.0/

> are usable.  I assume that would be a common case.

Thanks for the helpful suggestion.

Peter