RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (3)
RFC 8228, "Guidance on Designing Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) Supporting Variant Labels", August 2017
Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
Errata ID: 5670
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Asmus Freytag
Date Reported: 2019-03-23
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2019-03-25
Section 13 says:
In this document, the symbol "r-n" means "a reflexive (identity) mapping of type 'n'".
It should say:
In this document, the symbol "r-k" means "a reflexive (identity) mapping of type 'k'".
Notes:
The notation "r-n" is used a few lines later for "r-neither". Therefore, a different letter needs to be used for a generic placeholder for all types. "k" seems appropriate.
Errata ID: 5671
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Asmus Freytag
Date Reported: 2019-03-23
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2019-03-25
Section 17 says:
The following shows such an example resulting in conflicting reflexive variants:
It should say:
The following shows such an example resulting in conflicting variant dispositions:
Notes:
typo
Errata ID: 6107
Status: Verified
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Asmus Freytag
Date Reported: 2020-04-14
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2020-04-14
Section 14 says:
Because no variant label with any code point outside the repertoire could ever be allocated, the only logical choice for the non- reflexive mappings to out-of-repertoire code points is "blocked".
It should say:
Because no variant label with any code point outside the repertoire would ever be allocated in this example, the only logical choice for the non- reflexive mappings to out-of-repertoire code points is "blocked".
Notes:
As written the sentence makes an absolute claim that isn't in accordance with RFC7940. While not usual, there are circumstances where allowing allocatable variants for a code point that has a reflexive "out-of-repertoire-var" mapping may make sense. Therefore, the statement needs to be read as restricted to the specific scenario or example under discussion.