06FD and 06FE should be PVALID for Sindhi
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Tue Apr 1 17:46:10 CEST 2008
Agreed on all counts. If the answer is "will change in a future
version", stability might argue for making the exception now.
That decision, too, would need to be made by the WG after
listening to whatever advice UTC has. But I don't see a need to
debate it until after we hear from them.
--On Tuesday, April 01, 2008 8:38 AM -0700 Paul Hoffman
<phoffman at imc.org> wrote:
> At 9:46 AM -0400 4/1/08, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Unless there is some fundamental issue that we do not know
>> about, or unless it is appropriate and possible to correct
>> the property assignments in Unicode 5.1, I think these
>> character should go into the Exceptions table as he suggests.
> Based on the description from Sarmad and John's followup, that
> sounds fine. However, we need to hear, formally or informally,
> from The Unicode Consortium, before we do so.
> It would be fine to hear that they are correcting this in
> Unicode 5.1 if they are going to. It would be fine to hear a
> strong assurance that they are correcting this in a future
> version if they are going to. In either case, we would then
> not need to add an exception.
> It would be fine to hear that they do not intend to make the
> change because they don't think it is a correction, but they
> have no problem with us adding this as an exception. We could
> certainly then add it to our exceptions list.
> What would be bad to hear from the Unicode Consortium, but we
> should give them an opportunity to say so, is "no, that's
> wrong, please don't make an exception". At that point, the WG
> needs to decide how to move forward on the topic.
More information about the Idna-update