Subject: [I18n-discuss] Draft UTR 53 and associated issues

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 14:04:03 -0400

Hi.  I just posted a note about this new proposed Unicode
Technical Report associated with post-normalization adjustments
to Arabic script. 

Briefly, while normalization orders combining marks in ascending
order of code points, the effects of that cause problems with
Arabic display.  This document proposes to fix that.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idna-update/NUhnoMeTDpMDKa3HRWWBB3hBQL4

As that message indicates, comments should go directly to
Unicode.  A discussion on IETF lists (e.g., idna-update, precis,
or the IAB i18n-discuss list) seems to me to be useful only if
it is about specific implications of the draft technical report
to IETF work.

    john

---

From: Asmus Freytag <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 13:55:20 -0700

There's an important clarification of scope that's missing from the 
document, but can be found in the mail-thread on idna-update.

Implication for IETF may be less than it appears without that clarified 
scope.

A./

PS: John, can you forward this as necessary - I'm not on all the lists 
you sent this to.

On 10/5/2017 11:04 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> I18n-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss
>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 20:20:24 -0400

--On Thursday, October 5, 2017 13:55 -0700 Asmus Freytag
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> There's an important clarification of scope that's missing
> from the document, but can be found in the mail-thread on
> idna-update.
> 
> Implication for IETF may be less than it appears without that
> clarified scope.
> 
> A./
> 
> PS: John, can you forward this as necessary - I'm not on all
> the lists you sent this to.

That is the reason I tried to force the discussion onto the
idna-update list and just tell people on the other two about it.
Will pull the other two lists in as needed.  So far, silence on
PRECIS, which is actually more likely to have problems than IDNA.

I may just not understand UTC procedures well enough but if the
need for rewriting and clarification is as clear as Mark's note
seemed to indicate, I don't understand why the draft has not
been withdrawn and rewritten.  An announcement to all three
lists about a new version would seem to me to be appropriate;
otherwise, this is my last posting to this one.

    john

best,
   john

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 18:31:11 -0600

> PRECIS, which is actually more likely to have problems than IDNA.

I did not see this message appear on the PRECIS list, but I do see it in
the archives. Perhaps cross-posting obscured from me the fact that it
was also posted to the PRECIS list.

Peter

---

From: Asmus Freytag <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 18:03:35 -0700

> otherwise, this is my last posting to this one.
Because this is about on the level of an internet-draft (="proposed 
draft") and will see much editing before it becomes accepted in 
principle for publication (="draft").

Retracting it would make it impossible for us to comment on its 
deficiencies.

A./