Unicode Character Repertoire Subsets
draft-bray-unichars-15

Thanks to Tim Hollebeek for their secdir review.

# Éric Vyncke, INT AD, comments for draft-bray-unichars-14
CC @evyncke

Thank you for the work put into this document. As I am not familiar with Unicode and the ART area, I am balloting No Objection as I assume that the misunderstanding is on my side (plus my trust in the sponsoring AD). But, I would welcome replies to the following comments especially about the intended status.

## Abstract

s/for use in protocols and data formats/for use by the IETF in protocols and data formats/ as this I-D mentions several other SDOs, let's be clear.

## Intended status

I wonder why the intended status is "proposed standard" when section 1 contains "This document discusses issues" and "this document only provides guidance" and I was unable to find strict normative language in the document.

## Section 2.1

Should there be informative references to `JSON, YAML, CBOR, and XML` ?

## Section 2.2.1

While all other sections provide a nice summary and explanations, there is no explanation about "surrogate". Readers who are non familiar with Unicode, like me, would welcome some explanations though.

## Section 3

The non familiar reader would also welcome some explanation about `the noncharacter U+7FFFF encoded per JSON rules as two escaped UTF-16 surrogate code points` ;-)

## PRECIS WG

Rather than referring to a WG, why not referring to the 8 RFCs published by the PRECIS WG ?

** Abstract.  Editorial.
   This document discusses specifying subsets of the Unicode character
   repertoire for use in protocols and data formats.

What does it mean to “discuss specifying subsets”?  Doesn’t Section 4 explicitly specify subsets?

Thanks for this useful document that I hopefully can point people to in the future when processing input from the network :)

Some minor comments.

I was not aware of the subscript "16" as used in Section 2 as meaning "base 16" aka "hexadecimal". That might be useful to explain?

The document uses "2 ** 16" at one place and "2 16" with 16 in superscript at another place, suggesting these things are different when they are not ?

The document uses comments in describing the sets that could lead to people assuming there are errors in the document, eg:

   %x0-D7FF / %xE000-10FFFF  ; exclude surrogates

   %x20-D7FF /         ; exclude surrogates

   %xA0-D7FF /                     ; exclude surrogates

I think it would be more clear if the comments were slightly different, describing the slightly different ranges, thus making the reader more confident that the document does not contain errors.