SC22/WG20 N956D

Title: Disposition of comments on DTR2 of 14652 (draft)

Date: 2002-06-08

Source: ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG20

Status: editors draft

References: JTC 1 N6769, WG20 N951, JTC 1 N6721

In the following the dispostion of comments is given with respect to the DTR
ballot in JTC 1 N 6769, Information technology - Specifications for
Cultural Conventions.

The ballot ended with 9 JTC 1 P-members voting for the draft to be approved
as presented, 1 P-member for approving the draft with comments, 6 P-members   
disaproving the draft with comments, 3 P-members abstaining, and 9 P-members
not yey voting. In total 10 P-members approved the draft with or without comments,
and 6 P-members disapproved the draft. A majority of the voting JTC 1 P-members
has thus approved the draft and according to JTC 1 directives the DTR has thus
been approved.

Disposition of comments:

Germany
1. The conformance clause has been retained for use when the document will be 
   processed for acceptance as an International Standard. A majority of JTC 1 
   P-members has approved this text.
2. A majority of JTC 1 P-members has approved that the LC_CTYPE category is
   not controversial.
3. Consider making it a type 3, this consideration could be made in due time,
   when more experience with implementation has been collected.
4. dual currency: The dual currency problem is foreseen to be coming up again
   when more countries join the EU, or if some more EU countries change to use the
   Euro, and this specification is thus not obsolete. It is the only specification
   proposed that can handle the dual currency problem in line with TR 11017.
5. Marking as controversial: see response to 2.
6. The selection of characters for mnemonics are not arbitrary, but selected
   on a basis on what characters are present in the ISO 2375 register.
7. The mnemonics reflects internet and ISO member body use.
8. The transliteration facility handles many transliteration problems, 
   but does indeed not handle East Asian and other transcription problems,
   which is anoter subject area.

Ireland
1. Actually the DTR 1 got sufficient support to be approved according to JTC 1 directives.
2. Other comments are handled under response to the comments from the USA, as the
   Irish comments do not have specifical technical content.

Japan
1. WG20 agrees that updating the TR to cover a more recent version of 10646 would
   be beneficial, but also time consuming, and would not be in the scope of the current
   work which is to publish as a TR type 1 the work that could not be approved as a
   standard. Furthermore the DTR refers to IS 14651 which has the same repertoire. Enhancing
   the repertoire now would lead to an inconsistent specification. 
   WG 20 will seek to make an amendment to the TR for updating the covered
   repertoire of 10646.
2. The transliteration facilities covers many transiteration specifications, but is not
   intended to cover transcription of East Asian Ideographic scripts. This is acknowledged
   to be another technical area that requires much more elaborate facilities.

Norway
?? Approve? Or do it as an amendment?

Sweden
1. Wrt to updated repertoire of IS 10646, see response to Japan.
2. A statement of why the specification could not be approved as in
   International Standard will be added (I dont know what to write there tho,
   as the FCDs passed or could have passed. )

Switzerland
1. A level of consensus has been reach to go forward with publication of the TR
   according to JTC 1 directive rules. 
2. 10646 repertoire: see response to Japan.
3. The "i18n" FDCC-set is defined for a number of categories in conjunction
   with the respective category, and it would be a waist of space, and a burden on
   maintenance to duplicate it. However, WG20 can make it available from its website.
4. WG20 would have appreciated a list of errors to be corrected from the Swiss
   member body.

UK
The UK provided some late comments in WG20 N951 that are reviewed here at the request
of the SC22 secretariat.
i. It is known that there is opposition to the DTR, this is the reason why
   it is a technical report type 1.
ii. Not accepted. This is how technical reports of type 1 is normally written.
iii. This is why it is a TR type 1, and it is left to its users to see what
   value it has.

USA
The executive summary of comments is expected to be elaborated in the technical comments,
so there is no disposition of the executive summary comments.  Technical comments:
1. Not accepted. There is consensus according to JTC 1 rules on the specifications
   as a TR type 1.
2. Not accepted. see response 1 to Japan.
3. not accepted. The definition of combining characters is the same as in 10646.
4. not accepted. For example, some latin and cyrillic characters are fullwidth in some
   eastern 14-bit codesets.
5. Not accepted. These characters are alternate forms and should not be allowed in identifiers.
6. Probably partial accept. Georgian does not have a relation between basic and
   extended. Correct script names.
7. accepted.
8. accepted
9. accepted
10. not accepted. The decimal separator is expected to be the same in the same
    culture for different currencies. In the example of Lire it is expected that
    lire actually can be specified with decimals, in cases where more than normal
    precision is required.
11. not accepted. It is not expected that old POSIX specs can handle 14652
    specs correctly.
12. Not accepted. You can use the timezone information in a selection prompt
    to set the right timezone, in the TZ variable. This seems to be a quite useful use.
13. Not accepted. See WG20's response to the US TECHNICAL 32 in the
    dispositions of comments on the previous DTR.
14. Not accepted. The LC_ADDRESS category now defines that these keywords are relevant.
15. accepted. The text will be clarified to say that %n can use the result from
    applying LC_NAME information.
15a. not accepted. (or is there a simple fix to skip format text? could be done
    in the amendment.
16. The whole LC_TELEPHONE catecory has a statement that it is not just digits.
    How many times should it be stated? You need to have the full telephone
    number splitted up, for mobile applications, where you need to call the
    number either from abroad, long distance or local.
17. Table 1 is defined in 3.2.3. The "characters of the names" is correct.
18. See 17.
19. the i18nrep is not intended to be complete. Words will be added to that
    effect. See also response 6 to Germany.
20. not accepted. see response 3 to Switzerland.

WG20 finds that the changes as agreed above does not constitute a major
change of the DTR, and resolves that the document goes forward for TR
publication, as approved by a majority of JTC 1 P-members.