Hi Martijn, Thank you for your review. We have updated the document and posted the files here for your review: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9639.xml https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9639.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9639.pdf https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9639.html
Diffs of most recent updates only: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9639-lastdiff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9639-lastrfcdiff.html AUTH48 diff: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9639-auth48diff.html Comprehensive diffs: https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9639-diff.html https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9639-rfcdiff.html Please review and let us know if updates are needed or if you approve the RFC for publication. Thank you, RFC Editor/sg > On Dec 7, 2024, at 4:05 AM, Martijn van Beurden <mva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Op vr 6 dec 2024 om 22:33 schreef Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@amsl.com>: >> >> While troubleshooting, we were advised not to mix LTR and RTL scripts within >> the same <t> element and to include explanatory text that uses the <u> >> element. >> > > I can see why this is problematic. For that very same reason it is > very useful as an example of course. Thank you for taking the time to > address this. > >> >> We have updated the file to be more similar to RFC 9290 (which also uses >> “שלום") — "TITLE=שלום” now appears in artwork and is followed by the >> following explanatory text: >> >> where in direction of reading, the sequence of characters is: >> "ש" (HEBREW LETTER SHIN, U+05E9), "ל" (HEBREW LETTER LAMED, U+05DC), >> "ו" (HEBREW LETTER VAV, U+05D5), "ם" (HEBREW LETTER FINAL MEM, U+05DD). >> > > While this explains the part in Hebrew, it omits the Latin part. I > think this should be noted. I propose the following change > > OLD: > where in direction of reading, the sequence of characters is > > NEW: > where in direction of reading, the sequence of characters forming the > field content is > > I am not entirely sure whether 'forming the field content' is the best > possible phrasing here. Feel free to propose something else, I just > think that it is useful to mention that this 'spelling out' concerns > the field content, not the field name nor the separator (see section > 8.6 for details on these terms) > > I hope this proposal isn't too much trouble. > > Kind regards, > > Martijn van Beurden > -- auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
