Subject: [I18ndir] I18ndir early review of draft-faltstrom-unicode12-00

From: "Asmus, Inc. via Datatracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 10:50:59 -0800

Reviewer: Asmus, Inc.
Review result: Ready with Nits

This review based primarily on the diff, with just some look at the full text
of the -01 draft to get the complete context for some items.

(1) The math of code points needs to be reviewed in section 4.3. It appears to
not account for a property change for U+111C9

(2) In Section 5, there's a sentence that seems to have a sense destroying edit:

     The code point if being accepted might due ???? to implementations of
     IDNA2008 based on older versions of Unicode than 11.0.0 be rejected.

(3) plural noun/verb mismatch in section 6

    ... new versions [...] is...

(4) Section 8: use of definite article. Drop "the" in front of Unicode Version
(also check other instances)

(5) Usefully, the discussion of SHARADA SANDHI MARK could point out whether it
treated the same or different from other SANDHI marks in related scripts. (From
just looking at the tables, and not the original UCD entries, it looks like
that they are all now treated the same, which would be beneficial under the
"least astonishment" principle - or whatever it's called).

(6) typo: detabase

(7) This progressing subsetting  --> "progressive"

(8)typo: "from from" (multiple instances)

(9)typo: "chacters" (multiple instances)

(10) typo: "situtions"

(11) Better wording? 

   As one can see in Section 3, there is one incompatible change made
   between Unicode 6.2.0 and 12.0.0, the code point U+111C9.  It has
    changed derived property value from DISALLOWED to PVALID. 

to

  As one can see in Section 3, an incompatible property change was made
  between Unicode 6.2.0 and 12.0.0, affecting the code point U+111C9.  Its
  derived property value thus changed from DISALLOWED to PVALID

(12) IDNA 2008 allow --> IDNA2008 allows

(13) typo: "section Section"

---

From: "Patrik Fältström" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:31:36 +0100

I have looked at these things, but need some help...

On 5 Mar 2021, at 19:50, Asmus, Inc. via Datatracker wrote:

> This review based primarily on the diff, with just some look at the full text of the -01 draft to get the complete context for some items.
>
>
> (1) The math of code points needs to be reviewed in section 4.3. It appears to not account for a property change for U+111C9

What bug do you see? I have looked and looked...if you just say what the issue is, I can change.

I have *not* changed any math here.

>      IDNA2008 based on older versions of Unicode than 11.0.0 be rejected.

This sentence is indeed weird, specifically with the various ',' that makes it possible to read (at least for me that knows Swedish).

I changed to:

> If the code point is accepted, it might still be rejected if validated by software based on older versions of Unicode than 11.0.0.

>     ... new versions [...] is...

Seems to not exist anymore.

> (4) Section 8: use of definite article. Drop "the" in front of Unicode Version (also check other instances)

Fixed.

> (5) Usefully, the discussion of SHARADA SANDHI MARK could point out whether it treated the same or different from other SANDHI marks in related scripts. (From just looking at the tables, and not the original UCD entries, it looks like that they are all now treated the same, which would be beneficial under the "least astonishment" principle - or whatever it's called).

Added.

> (6) typo: detabase

Fixed.

> (7) This progressing subsetting  --> "progressive"

Fixed.

> (8)typo: "from from" (multiple instances)

Fixed.

> (9)typo: "chacters" (multiple instances)

Fixed.

> (10) typo: "situtions"

Fixed.

>   derived property value thus changed from DISALLOWED to PVALID

Fixed!

> (12) IDNA 2008 allow --> IDNA2008 allows

Fixed already.

> (13) typo: "section Section"

Fixed!

   Patrik

---

From: "Asmus Freytag (c)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:25:18 -0800

> I have *not* changed any math here.

I added the change in property counts in my head and compared them to 
the change in UNASSIGNED. They match.

But you discuss a change in property of an individual code point from a 
previous property that had not been UNASSIGNED, so there should be a + / 
- 1 somewhere. Perhaps that happened at a different version? Needs 
clarification where we can find that accounted for. (Unless my math was 
off).

>> If the code point is accepted, it might still be rejected if validated by software based on older versions of Unicode than 11.0.0.

That matches.

German and Swedish readers (in their languages) can usually handle more 
deeply nested sentences than English speakers in English.

> Seems to not exist anymore.

OK - could be - item (3) was based on looking at -00, so if you fixed 
that in -01 it would be gone.

After the first few items, I based things on your -01 draft.

A./