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<[email protected]> 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<[email protected]>
Sent: 05 February 2025 18:28
To: Independent Submissions Editor (Eliot Lear)<[email protected]>; ENRICO
FRANCESCONI<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: RFC Editor<[email protected]>;[email protected]
<[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>
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)<[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
via de' Barucci, 20, 50127 – Florence (Italy)
www.cnr.it
Devolvi il 5×1000 al CNR
CF 80054330586
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
