WG Review: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (Revised) (idnabis)

[Simon Josefsson]

Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> writes:

> It is believed that the first attempt in 2003 did not adequately deal
> with several key issues including Unicode version-independence.

Could someone remind me why IDNA2003 couldn't be updated in a minimal
fashion to reference Unicode 5.1 instead of 3.2?  It's not like it is a
huge amount of work for every new Unicode version.

Remember, the IDNA WG in 2003 chose consciously to reference a
particular Unicode version, for reasons that still are valid.  It didn't
happen by accident.

/Simon