Hi Sandy, This looks great, I approve. Many thanks for incorporating, and improving on, my suggestion.
Kind regards, Martijn van Beurden Op do 12 dec 2024 00:36 schreef Sandy Ginoza <sgin...@amsl.com>: > 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
