Re: [office] Appendix on Bidi

[Michael Brauer - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

David, all,

I have revised the proposal based on David's suggestions. More precisly, I 
have changed the heading of the appendix to

"Appendix A.Bidirectional (BiDi) Scripts,Numeric Digits Presentation and 
Calendars (Non Normative)"

and have corrected the spelling erors David reported. The new document is at

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/18630/06-06-08-bidi-appendix

Some more comments are inline.

David A. Wheeler wrote On 06/01/06 22:59,:
>>Michael Brauer a écrit :
>>

> 
> First, the chapter title says Bidi & Internationalization.... it then
> talks about Bidi, calendars, and numbers, but never mentions some of
> the very basics of internationalization.  Perhaps there should be another
> subsection, after the first two, for the basics of character set encoding
> and language support.  Internationalization is a STRENGTH of OpenDocument,
> not surprisingly, but since it's spread all over the document having the
> highlights in this appendix would make sense:

For the moment, I have changed the title of the appendix, but did not extend 
it. The simple reason is that we did not receive any comments for other 
internationalization features than whose covered by the appendix, so we 
(maybe) can assume that no clarification is required here. I think we should 
discuss this in our next TC call.

> Should we reference ISO 10646 and friends, not the Unicode specs?
> This is non-normative, so perhaps this is unnecessary, but it might make ISO happy.
> I'm not sure that ISO has the Bidi information the way Unicode does, though.

The appendix references two technical reports. The reference to [UAX9] has 
been suggested by the Israel member body, so I assume this reference is okay. 
The other reference, [UTR20], is a reference to a document that is not part 
of the Unicode standard. I therefore assume that it has no counterpart in ISO 
10646.

> 
> And several nits:
> * Should "Non Normative" have a hyphen between the two words?

I did not change that, because we don't have a hyphen in other appendixes, too.

> * "so called" should be "so-called" in all places it's used.

I've remove the "so called", since they seem not to be required at all.

> * In "(U+202A ... U+202E) and ," the comma after the "and" is extraneous.
> * "an Unicode" should be "a Unicode" ("Unicode" begins with a /y/ sound)
> * "included into an" should be "included in an"
> * "only allows to store... but not" should be "only allows storing... not"

I've correct above four items.
> 
> --- David A. Wheeler

Michael