Dear Madison, thanks a lot for your collaboration! We have double checked the latest version and we found the following issues:
1) At the end of section 3.4. "Unicode Characters Outside the ASCII Range" - at Munich circular, the UTF-8 code still includes %xC3%xBC instead of %C3%BC, - at Law of the Russian Federation, the UTF-8 code still includes %xD1%x81%xD0... instead of %D1%81%D0… (it holds for all the 3 lines) 2) At section 3.6. "Date Format", at the very end of the section, after the line: "The characters that are not allowed (e.g., "/") or reserved (e.g., ",") cannot exist inside the date-loc and therefore MUST be turned into "."." we would add the following: "To be aligned with ISO format, any blank between day, month and year MUST be converted into "-"." 3) At section 5.7., at point "PDF format (vers. 1.7) of the whole act edited by the Italian Parliament:" In the example ending as follows ...application-pdf;1.7: the colon (:) is to be removed. As for the Hebrew dates, in html and pdf the ISO date and the Hebrew one are correctly oriented, while in the txt they are not As for your updates, please find in-line below our replies. Best Pierluigi and Enrico > On 2 Apr 2025, at 23:29, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Thank you for your continued patience as we move forward with this document! > We have updated the files as requested to use hyphens in the Hebrew date > example. Additionally, the UTF-8 and U+ notations have been updated to > reflect those changes. We ask that you review the updates to ensure > correctness. > > Some additional updates we wanted to point out: > 1) For the date example in Section 3.6, we have added a description > containing the order of the characters and how they should appear. This is > due to the fact that the Hebrew date may be displayed differently depending > on different document presentation environments. OK > > > 2) Pierluigi and Enrico noted the following on Feb 20th: >> 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) > > Although most of these issues have been resolved due to the corrected PDF > output, we unfortunately do not have control over the .txt output or right > alignment in this case since the .txt output can vary depending on which > tool/browser is used. For example, Safari and Google Chrome display the date > correctly (1999-09-02|כ״א-בֶּאֱלוּל-תשנ״ט) while Firefox displays the date in > reverse (the Hebrew string followed by 1999-09-02). OK > > > 3) We also wanted to point out that the date itself has been updated as > follows since the previous version was displayed backwards upon further > review. The RTL characters now appear in the correct order. > > Original: > ט״נשת לוּלאֱבֶּ א״כ > > Current: > כ״א-בֶּאֱלוּל-תשנ״ט OK > > 4) We note that the ISO reference has been withdrawn and is no longer > available. There are two updated versions: ISO 8601-1:2019 > (https://www.iso.org/standard/70907.html) and ISO 8601-2:2019 > (https://www.iso.org/standard/70908.html). Would you like to update to use > one or the other? Or both? > > Current: > [ISO.8601.1988] > ISO, "Data elements and interchange formats - Information > interchange - Representation of dates and times", > ISO 8601:1988, June 1988. > > Perhaps: > [ISO.8601-1.2019] > ISO, "Date and time - Representations for information > interchange", > ISO 8601-1:2019, February 2019. > > [ISO.8601-2.2019] > ISO, "Data elements and interchange formats - Information > interchange - Representation of dates and times", > ISO 8601-2:2019, February 2019. We think that including both is the best choice. > > > The 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 relevant diff files have been posted here (please refresh): > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676-diff.html (comprehensive diff) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676-rfcdiff.html (side by side view) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676-auth48diff.html (all changes > made in AUTH48) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676-auth48rfcdiff.html (side by side > view of all AUTH48 changes) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676-lastdiff.html (most recent > updates) > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9676-lastrfcdiff.html (side by side > view of most recent updates) > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9676 > > Thank you, > RFC Editor/mc > > On Mar 31, 2025, at 3:56 PM, Madison Church <mchu...@staff.rfc-editor.org> > wrote: > > Hi Eliot and Enrico, > > Thank you both for your messages and apologies for the delayed response on > our end! > > At the moment, we are currently waiting for a tools update that will fix the > PDF output of the left-to-right and right-to-left text in Section 3.6. The > tools update that includes this fix is planned for this week. Once the update > is complete, we will send updated files that incorporate Enrico’s requested > updates regarding spaces in the Hebrew date. > > Thank you for your patience! > > Best, > RFC Editor/mc > >> On Mar 31, 2025, at 2:49 PM, ENRICO FRANCESCONI <enrico.francesc...@cnr.it> >> wrote: >> >> Dear Eliot, >> the latest email of ours was on March 6th about spaces in Hebrew dates. In >> our opinion it was the last issue to fix. We are now waiting for feedback. >> >> Best >> Enrico >> >>> On 31 Mar 2025, at 20:25, Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear) >>> <rfc-...@rfc-editor.org> wrote: >>> >>> 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 to https://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
