Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] Version 1 of the Draft Final Report
On 9 Sep 2011, at 02:13, Steve Sheng wrote: > <IRD v1 redline version.doc> I marked up a redline version. Mostly editorials though on section 5 there are some comments that might be procedural. Also one possible substantive comment that occurred to me, apologies, while reviewing the translation/transliteration definitions and noting that transliterations were not really viable for logographic based writing systems. I don't think we ever discussed ascii transcription, at least I do not remember doing so. I am not suggesting we do so at this point, and I think it would have many of the same problems that transliterations has, and perhaps more - ie. are there even tools for that? so my questions are: - for completeness sake should we define ascii transcription and mention that we did not consider it. - should it be included in the topics to be covered in the recommended issues report. Also I am pretty sure that ISO 8601-2004 http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=40874 is the right std for dates. ASN.1 seems to refer to the ISO spec. As far as I can tell SMIv2 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2578) also uses the same notation. But I am not an expert on dates. avri Attachment:
IRD v1 redline version+ad1.doc
|