[technical contributor] On 2009/06/10 20:09, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Den 2009-06-10 12.37, skrev "Martin J. Dürst"<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>:lines containing only the sequence "%%" (U+0025 U+0025)....The sequence '..' (U+002E U+002E) in a field-body denotes a range ofNit-pick: Unicode (and ISO/IEC 10646) uses tuple syntax when denoting character sequences. So: lines containing only the sequence "%%" (<U+0025, U+0025>). ... The sequence '..' (<U+002E, U+002E>) in a field-body denotes a range ofother subtags in a tag by a hyphen ("-", [Unicode, p. 1077] U+002D).
I'm fine with adding the comma. I don't think the IETF uses '<' and '>', so I'd prefer to leave them out.
Still nit-picking: I'm not too keen on including a page number. This is just as valid for other editions of TUS.
Fine with me to leave that out.
And does the reference have to be placed so awkwardly?
No. I just left it where it was before. We didn't get a request to move the place of the reference. But I would be fine with ("-", U+002D [Unicode]) or so, if that looks better to you.
I don't think issue 63 needs lead to any changes in the text, but of course I'm not opposed to the suggested changes (with fixes as above).
[chair/shepherd hat on]: If I won't be able to detect a clear preference in the WG for or against this change, I plan to put consensus on the side of change for this specific issue given the circumstances.
Regards, Martin. -- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.