Received:  September 13, 1994


Regarding SC2/WG2 N1035 (1994-08-01), I have the following comments:

1.  remove superfluous ", or" at end of 4.37

2.  last phrase of 5 "with the two-octet BMP form" might be better
    expressed as "with the UCS-2 (BMP) form".

3.  on page 2, there are two subclauses 9.1, should the latter be 9.2?

4.  9.1 "Planes reserved..." states that planes 12-FF of group 0 are
    reserved; 9.1 "Planes accessible..." states that planes 11-FF of
    group 0 are not accessible. So, what about plane 11 of group 0?
    As stated it is not accessible, yet not reserved.  Should this be
    the case?

5.  The last phrase of para. 1 of 9.1 "Planes accessible..." has
    "with the two-octet BMP form of UCS-2".  This is tautologous.
    UCS-2 is always the two-octet BMP form. Why not say "with the
    UCS-2 (BMP) form"?

6.  pg. 3, Annex O, para. 2, has "... to pairs of two-octet sequences,
    where each sequence..." could be more clear if written "... to pairs
    of two-octet sequences, where each such sequence...".

7.  pg. 3, Annex O, O.1, #6, should have "... in the range 0001 0000 to
    0010 FFFF ..."

8.  pg. 3, Annex O, O.2, #5, the superscripting seems to conflict with
    the use of footnote numbers.  In fact, it doesn't seem necessary to
    have this item since it isn't used in the formulas (from what I can
    tell).

9.  pg. 3, Annex O, O.3, footnote 1, add something about why 0000 FFFE and
    0000 FFFF aren't included in this range.

10. pg. 3, Annex O, O.3, last table entry "x^3", what does the superscript 3
    mean here?  It is very unclear to me.  Why not have this entry show
    0011 0000 .. 7FFF FFFF unmapped?

11. pg. 4, O.3, last para has "... this sequence ...", should better read
    "... this RC-element sequence ...".  Also change the subsequent example
    to read (for terminological consistency):

    "Hi<high-half RC-element> <low-half RC-element>!!"

12. pg. 4, O.4, second entry (D800..DBFF) seems to need reformatting of
    the formula, e.g., "400" seems out of place.

13. Should there be "Advisory Notes" in a normative annex?

14. pg. 4, Advisory Notes, para. 1, change "... of every two-octet unit ..."
    to read "... of every RC-element ..."; also change "... of syntactically
    malformed sequence ..." to read "... of syntactically malformed RC-element
    sequence ...".

15. pg. 4, Advisory Notes, Example [should this example be numbered?] has
    "... to display missing glyphs would ..." but maybe should better read
    "... to display missing glyphs could ...".

16. pg. 4, Advisory Notes, Example [and on next page], it might be good to
    explain what the following mean:

    <hieroglyphicHigh>
    <hieroglyphicLow>
    <phoenicianHigh>
    <phoenicianLow>

    That is, that these refer to the high- and low-half RC-elements of a
    Heiroglyphic character and of a Phoenician character which are assumed
    be encoded outsidethe BMP in a UTF-16 accessible plane.

17. pg. 4, Advisory Notes, Example, add a space between "to" and "<heiro..."
    and also between "to" and "<box>".

18. pg. 4, Advisory Notes, last line "... if the receiver interprets that text
    as UCS-2 text" might better read "... if the receiver interprets that text
    as a sequence of UCS-2 CC-data-elements".

19. pg. 5, Advisory Notes, first bulleted para., "of High and Low-half" should
    read "of high-half and low-half".

20. pg. 5, Advisory Notes, second bulleted para., replace "e.g." with "i.e.".

21. pg. 5, Advisory Notes, under Examples:

    - change assumptions to read "assuming that both the weak and strong
      implementations support a non-BMP encoded Phoenician subset but not
      a non-BMP encoded Heiroglyphic subset:"

    - example W should have "... and to <phoenician>"   [add a space, no cap]

    - example S should have "... and to <phoenician>"   [add a space, no cap]

Regards,
Glenn Adams