[vip] Note LC deadline for draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc3536bis (was: [arabic-vip] Suggested meta-questions to think about)

[Dillon, Chris]

Dear colleagues,

I have been comparing the definitions in section 7 with Patrik's list.

The original definition in section 7 (referring to Traditional Characters and Simplified Characters in Chinese) is similar to Patrik's A.1.

"Visually similar" or "visually confusable" would be an addition to Patrik's list, perhaps A.5.

"Characters assigned more than one Unicode code point because of some special property" is for me near A.1, perhaps a sub-point of it.

Numerals are not on Patrik's list. Let us assign that A.6.

"Orthographic differences" within a language corresponds to Patrik's A.2.

Patrik also mentions words that _sound_ the same (perhaps "there" and "their"). Perhaps we could assign that A.7, although we may not want to keep that definition in the long run.

I am intending to set up examples in several languages of each possible definition (several of which we won't want to call variant at all in future) in the wiki, in the hope that that would make things clearer. There probably won't be time for that before the deadline.

Looking at things the other way round, it may be good to add Patrik's definitions A.3. and A.4 to section 7.

Are you aware of any other possible definition of the word "variant"?

Regards,

Chris.
==
Faculty Information Support Officer
for Arts & Humanities and Laws
Arts & Humanities Faculty Office
Andrew Huxley Building
UCL, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT
Tel 020 7679 1599 (int. 31599)
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/isd/staff/fiso/ah

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 05:26:25PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> Dear Dr Hussain, colleagues,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 05:48:16AM -0700, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote:
> > I am not sure if the following message sent by Andrew got the 
> > traction it needed.  I would request the members of the Arabic 
> > script team to look at the document urgently, especially Section 7 
> > (and the definition of variants in Section 7.2) and comment, as the 
> > document is in the last call.  There are a few categories of 
> > variants in Arabic script which are missing from the suggested list in Section 7.2 (ref. my earlier mail on variants in Arabic).
> 
> Thanks very much.  Let me also urge again team members to look at that 
> document, especially section 7.  Feedback can be sent to the IETF 
> apps-discuss at ietf.org WG mailing list.  You need to be a member of the 
> list to post; but if you don't want to join, feel free to send your 
> notes to me, with an explicit request to forward them to the relevant 
> IETF list as part of the last call, and I'll forward your remarks.
> 
> For those not familiar with the IETF, note that in the IETF, people 
> normally post as themselves and not as a representative of any 
> constituency, organization, or company.  In addition, even quite 
> informal remarks are welcome.  But comments that are received after 
> publication are impossible to address: a "quick fix" to an RFC, once 
> published, is mostly impossible except for errata.  The RFC series is 
> archival, and so once something is published a new RFC needs to be 
> written to take its place (if an update is needed).  So get those 
> comments in soon, if they're coming.
> 
> The last call for this draft ends 2011-06-30.
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com