From: Hart, Edwin F. Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 16:30 To: 'Joan Aliprand' Subject: RE: A couple of changes I think that we should drop it. However, what does it do to your cross-reference documents? Should we handle it by striking it out in the document, and noting that it is out of scope in your cross-reference docs? Best regards, Ed Edwin F. Hart edwin.hart@jhuapl.edu The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 11100 Johns Hopkins Road Laurel, MD 20723-6099 USA +1-443-778-6926 (Baltimore area) +1-240-228-6926 (Washington, DC area) +1-443-778-1093 (fax) +1-240-228-1093 (fax) -----Original Message----- From: Joan Aliprand [mailto:jaliprand@pobox.com] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 16:17 To: edwin.hart@jhuapl.edu Subject: A couple of changes Dear Ed: A couple of things I spotted. The versions I am referring to are CD-2375-body-072g.doc and CD-2375-annex-072g.doc. 11.3.2 has a reference to clause 6. " ... prior to circulation to members of the subcommittee concerned with coded character sets as specified in Clause 6." While this is correct (Clause 6 is 'ISO/IEC Supervisory Body" = SC2), it would be more precise to change the reference to Clause 13.7, which specifies the review by P-members. In A.3.2.2.3 Unused positions, the second sentence says: "In interchange the presence of the bit combinations corresponding to an unused position shall be an error condition." I see three problems with this plus a grammatical one: 1) Clause 2.4 says: "The registration itself does not specify the rules in accordance with which a character or character set identified by an escape sequence is to be used. Rather, the registration shall identify the documents, for example, standards, which specify such rules." Is the second sentence in Clause A.3.2.2.3 in conflict with Clause 2.4, since it's telling you what to do when you exchange data? 2) I also wonder whether the sentence should be normative. How an invalid bit combination is handled is outside the scope of this standard. If it's a useful piece of information, it should be turned into an informative note: NOTE: The presence of an unused bit combination should be treated as an error condition. 3) Why is it just interchange? In a stand-alone system that uses one or more registered character sets, shouldn't unassigned bit combinations also be treated as error conditions? And (fourthly) there's singular/plural disagreement in the current text. It should be "... the presence of a bit combination corresponding to an unused position ..." Let me know whether you think it should be dropped or made into a note. (If we omit it, I will take care of adding it to the CD cross-check and explanation of exlusions.) -- Joan