Table-building

[John C Klensin]

--On Wednesday, 31 January, 2007 21:50 -0800 Harald Tveit
Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand.no> wrote:

>> However, #1 might be a bit too restrictive. If we currently
>> say that character X has the value false, but there is an
>> issue if for some reason we find out that that character is
>> needed for some orthography of a language in, say, the Congo.
>> People who think that #2 is not sufficient might present some
>> scenarios where it could cause a problem (I can't think of
>> any myself).
> 
> Well put.
> 
> The discussion has exposed literally dozens of cases where the
> answer to "should the property be true or false" is "We don't
> know yet".
> 
> It is clearly stupid of any registry to allow the
> registraition of such characters, given that the property MAY
> end up false.
> It is equally stupid of any application developer to deny the
> attempt to lookup such characters, given that the property MAY
> end up true.
> 
> I think that's what the "tri-state" tables are trying to
> express.

Exactly.
    john