<<<
Chronological Index
>>>
Thread Index
>>>
Comments on Reference Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) for the Second Level
- To: comments-lgr-second-level-07jun16@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Comments on Reference Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) for the Second Level
- From: Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 21:02:38 +0900
Dear ICANN,
Please find my comments on Reference Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs)
for the Second Level as follows. Also please note that these comments
are based on technical aspects.
- Comments to
"Reference Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the Second Level -- Overview and
Summary"
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lgr-second-level-overview-summary-20may16-en.pdf>
+ Page3, 2nd paragraph
Adding some references to existing integration work at RootLGR project
would be helpful.
+ Page5, last paragraph
The referred URL is too old.
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lager-specification/>
is much preferrable.
- Comment to
"Evaluation of Deviation from the Second Level LGR References"
<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lgr-second-level-evaluation-deviation-07jun16-en.pdf>
+ Page1, 3rd paragraph
In the sentence "Current reference LGRs include a core set of code
points, variant rules, and Whole Label Evaluation (WLE) rules that
must be supported and also include an (optional) extended ruleset
serving special needs based on geographical or other variations.",
I think the phrase "must be supported" is too strong. I suggest
rephrasing it as "must be referred to".
- Comments to
"Label Generation Rules for Japanese"
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/packages/lgr/lgr-second-level-japanese-15may16-en.html
+ Section "Repertoire"
incorrect: JIS X 208-1990
correct: JIS X 0208:1997
+ Section "Rules"
Explanation about U+3006 and U+30FC in Japanese specific rules are
incorrect.
U+3006 is not a word separator, but is an alternative form of U+7DE0.
In the Unicode specification, the character U+3006 is classified as
"Common" in Scripts.txt and "Hani Hira Kana" in ScriptExtensions.txt.
This is the reason why U+3006 was required to have special context
rule by PDT provider. I strongly suggest removing the requirement
of context rule for U+3006. Otherwise, the explanation for the
necessity of the context rule must be consistent with previous PDT
specification.
U+30FC is a kind of iteration mark which denotes to prolong the
previous vowel. The common usage of U+30FC is explained in the
Unicode standard [123], but it is not the restricted rule.
In the Unicode specification, the character U+30FC is classified as
"Common" in Scripts.txt and "Hira Kana" in ScriptExtensions.txt.
This is the reason why U+30FC was required special context rule by
PDT provider. I strongly suggest removing the requirement of
context rule for U+30FC. Otherwise, the explanation for the
necessity of the context rule must be consistent with previous
PDT specification.
+ Section "Table of References"
[110]
incorrect: JIS X 208-1990
correct: JIS X 0208:1997
[123]
incorrect: section 18.4 Hiragana and Katakana
correct: section 12.4 Hiragana and Katakana
(18.4 is correct if [123] refers to the Unicode 7.0.0 or later)
Regards,
--
Yoshiro YONEYA <yoshiro.yoneya@xxxxxxxxxx>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>>
Thread Index
>>>
|