Don: Thank you for sending this document out for review. It looks like this is only part of the complete content. Either a separately-authored piece of content needs to be merged in, or a companion document needs to be distributed with this one and cross-referenced. In either case, I don't think this .docx file by itself fulfills the goal of UASG018. Details below. On 2018-12-31 13:30, Don Hollander wrote:
Please find attached a link to a proposed revision of UASG018.
http://viagenie.ca/ua/UASG_Programming_Language_Framework_Review_v1.0%20-%20...
Comments welcome, of course.
Don
Don Hollander
Secretary General – UASG
Skype: Don_Hollander
My background: I gave a presentation on the assessments encouraged by this document in Oct 2017 to the 41st Internationalization and Unicode Conference (/Universal Acceptance of non-Latin email addresses and domain names: how does your framework rate? (IUC41 presentation)/, <http://blog.jdlh.com/en/2017/10/31/universal-acceptance-eval-iuc41/>). Top level comments from a quick read-through of this version: /About this Document/, p. 5: "Technical details required by those performing library evaluations are presented in a separate document. This separation of documents is purely due to technical restrictions in the document platform. [Footnote] The tables in the technical presentation are wide, and best presented in landscape form. Google Docs cannot at present mix portrait and landscape pages in a single document." What is this "separate document"? I don't see a cross-reference to it. I don't see it circulated with this document. The purpose of UASG018 is, as I understand it, to describe an evaluation methodology in sufficient detail that some competent engineer could use it as a guide to performing an evaluation of a framework, and that evaluations done by different people following UASG018 for different frameworks would provide comparable insight about the frameworks. Without the "technical details required by those performing library evaluations", this document is incomplete for that task. And, why accept this limitation of the Google Docs tool as a reason for making UASG018 a half-document? There are many alternatives. 1. Find an authoring tool more up to the requirements of the content. 2. Author the landscape-format tables as a separate Google Doc making a separate PDF file, and merge the PDF files into one UASG018 in PDF form. 3. Author the tables in landscape orientation, on portrait-orientation pages, and let their text become tiny. Those reading online can zoom in to make the text readable. 4. Distribute UASG018 as two PDF or .docx files. But I don't think this single .docx file as distributed is acceptable to do the work of UASG018. /Page count/: was 24 pages in Version 0.96 (March 10th, 2017), the previous copy I had locally. It is 17 pages in Version 1.1 (July 13th, 2018). The list of changes don't explain to me how 17 pages was cut. Some is editorial: a blank page 2 was dropped. But some must have been substantive. The revision history should give a clue if scope was changed. /File name/: the document circulated has "1.0" and 2018-12-31 in its file name, /UASG_Programming_Language_Framework_Review_v1.0 - VG 2018-12-31.docx/ . But the content of the doc says it is "Version 1.1 (July 13th, 2018)". I suggest that both version number and date in the filename match the document content, or else it will be hard to find the correct version of the document. /Font of code samples/: e.g. Appendix A, code sample 1. On my computer, most of the code is in the Roboto Mono font, but the line "const char *name = u8"普遍接受-测试.世界";" appears in SimSun font. This is probably to represent the Chinese text in the example well. However, SimSun looks very different from Roboto Mono. It has thinner lines, different character widths, the glyphs have serifs, and the quote marks appear slanted instead of as upright C-language string delimiters. The code samples should be formatted in a consistent font. /Appendix B - References/, page 16: The references to external documents are given as links, with link text being the title of the document, and the link reference being the URL of the document. This is workabout but not terribly clear. It would be better to give the title, the date of the revision accessed, then URL of the document as both link text and link reference. This way, someone who copies the reference and pastes into a text-only document won't lose the link. It is also closer to traditional citation style. "/a set of comprehensive test data/",//Footnote 3, page 7: This footnote text links to <ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/idna/latest/IdnaMappingTable.txt>. If that resource is useful enough to link to, it should be in Appendix B as well. /Test case strings in reuseable form/: I had suggested before that UASG provide the strings listed as test cases in this document (and in its "technical details required by those performing library evaluations" sister document) be also provided as reusable data files. I recall you encouraging me to do this, and I have not yet followed through. I still think it's a good idea. This review cycle might be an opportunity to get it done. Once done, this document should link to that resource also. I hope these comments are helpful in getting discussion going. I look forward to hearing from others. Best regards, —Jim DeLaHunt, Vancouver, Canada -- --Jim DeLaHunt, jdlh@jdlh.com http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/) multilingual websites consultant 355-1027 Davie St, Vancouver BC V6E 4L2, Canada Canada mobile +1-604-376-8953