Historic scripts as MAYBE?

[Patrik Fältström]

On 28 apr 2008, at 04.04, Mark Davis wrote:

> If historic scripts are to be excluded, the up-to-date list  
> recommended by
> the consortium for U5.1 is at
>
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/#Specific_Character_Adjustments

As someone said already, in todays algorithm, we block things based on  
blocks, not scripts. If people want the selection on scripts back,  
fine, but that is something I want consensus on (as well).

> (BTW, I'm strongly against restoring MAYBE, for a number of reasons  
> already
> discussed. Haven't heard back from Patrik as to why, though, we  
> couldn't in
> exceptional circumstances move characters from DISALLOWED. If that is
> allowed, then it would be reasonable to exclude historic scripts,  
> since even
> if there were an out-of-the-blue revival, they could be handled.)

I though I explained and that I had not heard back from you :-)

Reason is that applications that block those codepoints will not let  
the codepoints be resolved. So starting using those codepoints will  
create problems.

This was exactly why we had MAYBE NOT category.

And the reason why we have the backward compatibility category (so  
that the algorithm can be kept in sync with the Unicode data).

That said (which we said in earlier discussions) every time RFCs are  
updated a decision has to be made regarding the change, and the reason  
why etc etc.

    Patrik


> Mark
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org>  
> wrote:
>
>> At 2:24 AM +0200 4/28/08, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>>
>>> In Unicode 5.1 Phaistos Disc, Carian, Lycian, and Lydian were added.
>>>
>>
>> Ah. Where? I don't see that on <
>> http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.1.0/>.
>>
>> For IDNAbis the list could be extended with say Glagolitic, Deseret,
>>> and Shavian.
>>>
>>
>> If we want to hand-pick them, yes. I proposed that we only use what  
>> The
>> Unicode Consortium has decided.
>>
>> But that requires great care, excluding Osmanyan could
>>> backfire if a future country in the former Somalia adopts it again.
>>>
>>
>> ...an even better reason not to hand-pick.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update