Madison, Enrico, where are we?
Eliot
On 06.03.2025 06:12, ENRICO FRANCESCONI wrote:
Dear Madison and Eliot,
thanks for your feedback about dates and different conversion formats.
In this respect, we noticed a potential issue in the fact that the Hebrew date
is written using spaces. Now, the LEX specifications suggest to replace spaces
with dots. On the other hand in the dates in ISO format the separator is a dash
(“-”).
This should apply for the Hebrew format too, as well as for its U+ and utf-8
versions. Therefore, we think that one of such characters (“-” or “.”) is to be
included in the Hebrew format and converted in U+ and utf-8.
Our preference would be to use “-” for dates, anyway even the version with “.”
can be ok.
Therefore, the Hebrew example would become:
ט״נשת-לוּלאֱב-א״כ (for us to be preferred) or ט״נשת.לוּלאֱב.א״כ
Sorry for this additional burden, anyway it seems that we are close to finalise
the RFC!
Best
Pierluigi and Enrico
On 5 Mar 2025, at 10:23, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear)<rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
On 20.02.2025 22:18, ENRICO FRANCESCONI wrote:
Dear Madison and Eliot,
we were preparing an answer to the previous message, when we received two
new emails of yours.
We report in the following our reply which partially addresses the issue on
Hebrew characters you underline in your message.
As for the alternatives you propose, we agree with Eliot that option 2), using
the workaround described, is to be preferred.
Now, please, see the answer we had prepared:
Dear Madison and Eliot,
we read again the whole document, and we found the following residual four
issues:
---
• We checked the conversion of the Hebrew characters and it seems to us
that the U+ conversion reported in the RFC is not correct:
ט״נשת לוּלאֱבֶּ א״כ in U+ should be:
U+05D8U+05F4U+05E0U+05E9U+05EAU+0020U+05DCU+05D5U+05BCU+05DCU+05D0U+05B1U+05D1U+05B6U+05BCU+0020U+05D0U+05F4U+05DB
According tohttps://r12a.github.io/app-conversion/, your correction is correct.
Please double check and fix it in the draft
---
• As for the conversion of the same date into UTF-8, it seems that it is
wrong as well, because it includes also the conversion of the U+ (%x55%x2b).
The correct one should be:
%xd7%x98%xd7%xb4%xd7%xa0%xd7%xa9%xd7%xaa%x20%xd7%x9c%xd7%x95%xd6%xbc%xd7%x9c%xd7%x90%xd6%xb1%xd7%x91%xd6%xb6%xd6%xbc%x20%xd7%x90%xd7%xb4%xd7%x9b
Same web site, this seems correct, assuming the x is appropriate.
Eliot
Please double check as well, and fix it in the draft
---
3) In general, and in the reported example in particular, if "data-loc" is
used internally, the following value can be kept: ט״נשת לוּלאֱבֶּ א״כ , but if it is to
be transmitted over the network, it is to be converted into UTF-8.
The example at the end of section 3.6 should, therefore, be written as follows:
"For example, 1999-09-02 will be written in ISO plus Hebrew format as:
1999-09-02|ט״נשת לוּלאֱבֶּ א״כ
which, see Section 3.4, is to be converted in UTF-8 for network protocols and for
resolution."
---
4) As for the example at the end of sect. 3.6, there is a mismatch between
the HTML format and PDF, as well as TXT, formats:
• in HTML we have: 1999-09-02|ט״נשת לוּלאֱבֶּ א״כ
• in PDF (at the top of pag. 17) the same dates appear as swapped
• in TXT the same dates appear:
• as in the HTML, if read via browser
• as swapped, if read locally via some text editors (in few cases even
aligned right)
---
Please let us know if you need more clarifications
Thanks for your attention!
Best regards
Pierluigi and Enrico
On 20 Feb 2025, at 21:24, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear)<rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
Madison,
Here's my view: I think your suggestion directly below is better than an
indefinite hold on a document. I would like the authors to weigh in.
Eliot
On 20.02.2025 21:21, Madison Church wrote:
If TI state is not favorable due to the unpredictable timeframe, another option
for a workaround would be to describe the order of the characters in the date
example and how they should appear (for a visual, see the Hebrew string that
appears in Section A.3 of RFC 9290 [4]).
For example:
"The following example uses right-to-left (RTL) script, which in the context of
this specification may be rendered differently by different document presentation
environments. The descriptive text may be more reliable to follow than the
necessarily device- and application-specific rendering. For example, 1999-09-02 will
be written in ISO plus Hebrew format:
1999-09-02|ט״נשת לוּלאֱבֶּ א״כ
where in direction of reading, the sequence of characters is…"
As always, if there are any additional questions, please feel free to reach
out. In the meantime, please let us know which option is preferred: 1) move
forward with placing the document into TI state, or 2) use the proposed
workaround above. If option 2 is preferred, we will make the update and send
files along for the authors and Eliot to approve.
[1]https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9676
[2]https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/queue/flowchart/
[3]https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1226
[4]https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9290.html#appendix-A.3
Thank you!
RFC Editor/mc
On Feb 15, 2025, at 5:25 AM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear)<rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
Madison, authors,
Let's be clear on what is being requested at this stage:
• Authors should review all versions of the document (text/html/pdf) for any
issues, and promptly report them. The exception is the one issue below
regarding Hebrew dates.
• The document will be held in TI state until such time as the tools team can
fix the formatting issue.
• Once that issue is resolved, the document will be regenerated.
• After that, authors will signal their approval.
• After that I will perform my final review.
• After that the RFC Editor will publish the RFC.
I want to confirm that this is what is expected. Do we have any estimate as to
how long the document will remain in TI state? I do not want this document
languishing longer than it already has. If it will take an extended period to
make correction (months), then we should look at other alternatives.
Eliot
On 13.02.2025 17:21, Madison Church wrote:
Hi Authors,
Thank you for your patience as we work through this issue.
We have updated the document as requested and incorporated the new U+ and UTF-8
notations for the Hebrew date. We ask that you verify the changes to ensure our
updates are correct.
After some further testing on our end, we are still unable to get the Hebrew
date to align correctly in the text output. Moving forward, we believe the best
solution is to 1) ensure that all changes in the document are approved by each
party, and 2) place this document into Tools Improvement (TI) state once AUTH48
is complete. As of right now, the formatting of the Hebrew date is the only
outstanding issue.
Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not make
changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any further
updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. We will
await approvals from each party prior to moving forward resolving this issue in
the publication process.
The updated files have been posted here (please refresh):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676.txt
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676.pdf
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676.xml
The updated diff files have been posted here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676-diff.html (comprehensive diff)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676-rfcdiff.html (side by side)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676-auth48diff.html (AUTH48 changes only)
https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side)
The AUTH48 status page can be found
here:https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9676
To track the issue in GitHub, please
see:https://github.com/ietf-tools/xml2rfc/issues/1224
Thank you,
RFC Editor/mc
On Feb 7, 2025, at 6:38 AM, ENRICO FRANCESCONI<enrico.francesc...@cnr.it> wrote:
P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} Dear Madison, Dear Eliot,
thanks for your suggestions. As for the conversion Latin --> Hebrew of the
example date, we have probably used a wrong converter, so we agree to use the
conversion you suggest.
As for the rest, please find in-line our replies.
Thanks!
Pierluigi and Enrico
From: Madison Church<mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org>
Sent: 05 February 2025 18:28
To: Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)<rfc-...@rfc-editor.org>; ENRICO
FRANCESCONI<enrico.francesc...@cnr.it>;pierluigi.spin...@gmail.com
<pierluigi.spin...@gmail.com>;caterina.l...@gmail.com <caterina.l...@gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Editor<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org>;superu...@gmail.com
<superu...@gmail.com>;auth48archive@rfc-editor.org <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9676 <draft-spinosa-urn-lex-24> for your review
Hi Authors and Eliot,
Thank you for your replies!
Authors - To confirm, you are suggesting that the example be shown as the
following (Removing the U+ notation and keeping the Hebrew format):
(e.g., "September 2, 99" will be written in ISO plus Hebrew format as
"1999-09-02|אלול,תשנ"ט.21").
Fine to remove the U+ format and keep the Hebrew format as in the example above
(end of Section 3.6).
Obviously, the right conversion into Hebrew characters (you suggest here below)
is to be used.
Please consider that in Section 3.6, all the occurrences of the example Hebrew
date, in Hebrew, U+ and UTF-8 notations, have to be updated accordingly, so
that they are all aligned with the new conversion you suggest.
Please note that this calendar converter [1] translates 1999-09-02 to כ״א
בֶּאֱלוּל תשנ״ט, and it does not use Arabic numerals nor punctuation in the
translation. Please confirm the use of Arabic numerals and punctuation for the
date-loc format.
[1]https://www.hebcal.com/converter?gd=2&gm=9&gy=1999&g2h=1
Thank you,
RFC Editor/mc
On Feb 2, 2025, at 1:38 PM, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot
Lear)<rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
My view:
On 02.02.2025 19:52, ENRICO FRANCESCONI wrote:
1) to remove "date-loc" and keep only the ISO version of any date
2) to keep "date-loc" including, as example, a Hebrew date transformed into ISO
latin characters (ex: 21.Elul,5759)
3) to keep "date-loc" including just the Unicode U+ version, without using
Hebrew characters
Please let us know what do you prefer and we proceed with the update of the
document
I don't like any of these options because none of them provide an example that
people going left to right would actually use. I am also concerned about
Chinese, fwiw.
Eliot
<image.png> <image.png> <image.png> <image.png> <image.png> Enrico Francesconi
CNR, INSTITUTE OF LEGAL INFORMATICS AND JUDICIAL SYSTEMS
Research Director
Tel. +390554399611
enrico.francesc...@cnr.it
enrico.francesc...@igsg.cnr.it
via de' Barucci, 20, 50127 – Florence (Italy)
www.cnr.it
Devolvi il 5×1000 al CNR
CF 80054330586
--
auth48archive mailing list -- auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
To unsubscribe send an email to auth48archive-le...@rfc-editor.org
