[sc34wg3] Comments on CXTM (N0454)

Kal Ahmed sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Thu, 11 Dec 2003 15:47:33 +0000


Lars Marius Garshol wrote:

>* Kal Ahmed
>|
>| I have been instructed by the WG to produce a CD and then make a
>| call for implementations, so it seems that all great minds are
>| thinking alike on this point :-)
>
>Great! Sounds like exactly what we want. When do you think you can
>have a CD ready?
> 
>
Hopefully v. soon - I would like us to be able to review implementations 
and implementation issues at XML Europe, so that means that the CD 
should be available to implementers early next year.

>| We discussed this and the general feeling was that it would be
>| better to provide explicit values everywhere (including all the
>| missing ones).  <snip>
>
>OK. I have no strong feelings about this.
> 
>
Good ! :)

>* Lars Marius Garshol
>|
>| Here we refer to ISO 10646 character codes instead of Unicode scalar
>| values as does TMDM. I realize the Infoset uses this terminology, but
>| USV is a) consistent with TMDM, b) more accurate, and c) we can be
>| consistent and reference Unicode instead of ISO 10646 everywhere.
>
>* Kal Ahmed
>|
>| You will have to help me out here, because character sets are not my
>| strong point. Are Unicode scalar values the same as 10646 character
>| codes ? 
>
>Nearly. As far as I know ISO 10646 "character code" is the same as
>Unicode "code point". Unicode "scalar value" is different, however,
>because only characters have them, so the surrogate code points are
>explicitly excluded. This *is* a detail.
>
>| If not, won't this cause problems in the XML canonicalisation step ?
>
>Nope. The numbers are the same, so the result will be the same. It's
>just an editorial issue of consistency across 13250, really.
>  
>
OK. There is the issue that Martin has raised about referring to the ISO 
standards where possible which I think is a convincing argument for 
keeping the reference to 10646. Is there a 10646 concept that matches 
the Unicode scalar value concept ? (I guess I could go check for myself, 
but its probably easier to ask...)

Cheers,

Kal