From donn@hpfcrn.fc.hp.com Mon Dec 2 18:45:07 1991 Received: from mcsun.EU.net by dkuug.dk via EUnet with SMTP (5.64+/8+bit/IDA-1.2.8) id AA15288; Mon, 2 Dec 91 18:45:07 +0100 Received: from relay.hp.com by mcsun.EU.net with SMTP; id AA18585 (5.65a/CWI-2.127); Mon, 2 Dec 1991 18:30:03 +0100 Received: from hpfcrn.fc.hp.com by relay.hp.com with SMTP (16.6/15.5+IOS 3.13) id AA18567; Mon, 2 Dec 91 09:29:59 -0800 Received: from hpfcdonn.fc.hp.com by hpfcrn.fc.hp.com with SMTP (16.8/15.5+IOS 3.22) id AA03957; Mon, 2 Dec 91 10:29:27 -0700 Message-Id: <9112021729.AA03957@hpfcrn.fc.hp.com> To: ALB Cc: SC22WG15RIN@dkuug.dk Subject: Re: (SC22WG15RIN.197) Comments from Alain LaBont/e on RIN questionnaire In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 29 Nov 91 16:11:00 GMT." <9111291741.AA20606@danpost2.uni-c.dk> Nov 91 16:11:54 GMT Date: Mon, 02 Dec 91 10:29:25 MST From: Donn Terry X-Charset: ASCII X-Char-Esc: 29 Mr. LaBont/e: As the original author of the questionaire, I believe that your reaction to it has been very useful, simply because it is eliciting exactly the kind of information that is needed. However, all standards people have to be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking "that which is not explicitly permitted is denied", and I believe you may be reading too much into the examples. They are examples of what we understand and can be done, and as such giving the IS form of some of them may in fact work to the disadvantage of the questionaire, as it is intended to elicit the "unusual" answer.) I had hoped that the examples would create reactions such as yours, and I believe that removing some of the text which you consider to be incomplete or biased might reduce the value of the questionaire! If you can give instances of questions or statements that might reduce the range of possible answers from some less-well-known culture, I encourage WG20 to make the necessary changes. However, I would also discourage changes that imply that some "right" answer is already known. (You will note that I was very careful to make it clear that the examples were of things we already know about and know how to do, and which were NOT complete.) You make some specific statements, which I take as examples of where your (implied) answer is useful, but changing the questionaire may be wrong. With respect to French vs. French Canadian collation: although the FORMAL STANDARDS may align, it is my understanding that existing practice varies between the two regions. (Specifically, I have been told that whether accents propigate to upper case varies, which in turn would affect collation.) If this is not the case, then I believe that we do need an example where this is the case (and I would be surprised to find that it wasn't true somewhere). This, however, does not devalue the implied answer you gave to the question: they're supposed to be the same beteen France and French Canadian. As far as sorts where the cases are separated: collation for use by non-expert users is often a distinct need from other collations. There is a valid need for both and I believe that although your answer is valid for your needs, the question should stand, if for no other reason than there might be some collating sequence where the example of case sensitivity gives the reader a clue that it might be useful to sort on some other characteristic. (E.g.: could there be a language that sorts first on tone, but which represents tone as some form of diacritical or letter variant (capitalization)? If so, giving this might provide a clue to the person filling out the questionaire that we wanted such examples.) I have given over the questionaire to the control of WG20 (or WG15) and I will no longer be working on it, so these are my opinions on it, and will only affect it to the degree that the WGs choose to let them. Donn Terry