This page is a compilation of formal public feedback received so far. See Feedback for further information on this issue, how to discuss it, and how to provide feedback.
Date/Time: Tue July 01 18:53:21 PDT 2025
ReportID: ID20250701185321
Name: Mark Davis
Report Type: Public Review Issue
Opt Subject: Improve readability of Unicode Set spec
523 Proposed Draft UTS #61, Unicode Set Notation 2025.07.01 UTC I think that https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr61/ would be more readable if it used shorter names for optional-white-space and white-space,. In message format, for example, o and s are used, such as: literal-expression = "{" o literal [s function] *(s attribute) o "}" I find that easier to read than if it were written with the long names: literal-expression = "{" optional-white-space literal [white-space function] *(white-space attribute) optional-white-space "}" where the whitespace obscures the meat of the syntax. The main place that would benefit would be: bracketed-element ⩴ { optional-white-space string-element optional-white-space } string-literal ⩴ { optional-white-space } { optional-white-space string-elements optional-white-space } string-element ⩴ bracketed-literal-element escaped-element named-element string-elements ⩴ string-element optional-white-space string-element string-elements optional-white-space string-element which could become bracketed-element ⩴ { o string-element o } string-literal ⩴ { o } { o string-elements o } string-element ⩴ bracketed-literal-element escaped-element named-element string-elements ⩴ string-element o string-element string-elements o string-element Question: the last line would also be simpler and easier to understand as the following. string-elements ⩴ string-element ( o string-element )* // or ABNF equivalent I recall though that the spec is using the less-readable format to be more easily parsable by tooling. "ows" and "ws" would also be more readable than optional-white-space and white-space, though not quite as pithy.