- From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:55:44 -0700
- To: "" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "Whistler, Ken" <ken.whistler@sap.com>
- CC: www-international@w3.org, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Mark Davis ☕️ <mark@macchiato.com>
On 8/28/2014 10:23 PM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > Hello Addison, > > On 2014/08/29 04:18, Phillips, Addison wrote: >> Hi Ken and Asmus, >> >> Recently you helped us address the issue [0] of the Unicode >> "violation" statements in the Encoding [1] specification. Based on >> your recommendations/suggestions, the document has been changed and >> no longer says that it "violates" any Unicode requirements. The >> editor's copy that reflects our changes is at [2]. >> >> The specific quotes still in the document now read: >> >> [Section 4.2] >> -- >> This is a much simpler and more restrictive algorithm of mapping >> labels to encodings than section 1.4 of Unicode Technical Standard >> #22 prescribes, as that is found to be necessary to be compatible >> with deployed content. >> -- >> >> [Section 14.2] >> -- >> Checking for and using a byte order mark happens before an encoding >> to decode a byte stream is chosen, as seen in the decode algorithm, >> as is deemed more accurate than any label. >> -- > > I really had problems parsing this sentence. One problem is that two > clauses start with "as". I suggest changing the connective for the > second clause to "because", and maybe moving that clause to the start > of the sentence. Other improvements might work too. Martin, I had difficulties as well with that sentence, but couldn't put my finger on it; thanks for pointing out the reason. There's nothing objectionable to the content that it intends to express, but it would be improved if reworded along the lines you suggest. A./ > > Also, unless this is clear from e.g. a link that's missing in the text > version in this email, it would also be useful to be specific about > whether the "decode algorithm" is something in the Unicode spec or in > the encoding spec. > > In addition, "before an encoding ... is chosen" looks problematic to > me because 1) "checking and using a BOM" also actually may choose an > encoding, and 2) because the "to encode a byte stream" makes the > structure difficult to parse (my first (and second and third) parse > was "checking ... happens before an encoding"). > > I suggest something along the lines of: > "A byte order mark has priority over an encoding label..." > > Regards, Martin. > > >> The W3C process requires that I get an indication that you are >> "satisfied" by our changes. Could you please reply to this email and >> indicate whether the changes in the document meet with your approval? >> >> Regards (for I18N), >> >> Addison >> >> [0] >> http://www.w3.org/International/docs/encoding/encoding-doc.html#issue-385 >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/encoding/ >> [2] http://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/ >> >> >> Addison Phillips >> Globalization Architect (Amazon Lab126) >> Chair (W3C I18N WG) >> >> Internationalization is not a feature. >> It is an architecture. >> >> >
Received on Friday, 29 August 2014 14:56:06 UTC