On 8. Apr 2025, at 09:49, Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Before making these repertoire decisions, you first need to say what kind of text you want to describe: > > I don't agree with your categories here. Please explain how you do not agree with these. > Surely the YANG example (Itself a language, category 1. Carries category 2 and category 3 inside.) > is good enough. Identifiers: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7950#section-6.2 Yes. The repertoire makes this implicitly 1D; a category 2. However, there is no beyond-ASCII character in there, so this is cheating; we’ve known since the 1970s how to describe these. > and then, as linked before, human readable text: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7950#section-9.4 That works as a category 3, e.g., for “description”. But it doesn’t tell me what a U+007F or a U+0009 does or whether I’m supposed to implement a U+008B Partial Line Forward (I’ve used these a lot on my Diablo 630, but never a U+008C Partial Line Backward). There appears to be an implicit understanding that you will use RFC 5198 with those texts, which could use an update after 17 years. Grüße, Carsten -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
