New version, draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-02.txt, available

[Yangwoo Ko]

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> Can you recommend specific scripts that you think should have the 
>>> "Stable" status?
>>
>> No; it's not my area of expertise. I comment merely as an 
>> implementor, for whom the current list looks concerning.
>>
>>> The fact that the CJK scripts are in MAYBE YES is probably the 
>>> biggest contributor to the sheer number of characters there. But I 
>>> have no idea whether there are known issues with them that should be 
>>> solved first.
>>
>> Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this what RFC 3743 addresses? 
> The JET guidelines actually give some reasonably powerful tools for 
> specifying which characters a particular registry wants to permit in 
> domain names it registers, with the possibility to specify some (but 
> not all) language-specific constraints and adaptions.
> But they don't specify which characters to permit, and the 
> specification language used is applied at the codepoint level, not at 
> the Unicode property level.

Seen from the viewpoint of 3743, the whole set of CJK characters in 
Unicode does not fit well as a repertoire from which a label can be 
built as practically usable. By extracting a subset and applying (often 
excessive) protections, we can generate a label (and its variants that 
are regarded as equivalent) that is "more" usable (or useful to suppress 
immediate conflicts).

>
> So it's less helpful than one might think in this particular endeavor.

As far as I know, RFC 3743 introduces a couple of tools that are 
orthogonal to this endeavor. I don't believe that there is a nice way to 
incorporate those tools into this table building process.

>
>                      Harald
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>