Historic scripts as MAYBE?
patrik at frobbit.se
Mon Apr 28 08:44:28 CEST 2008
On 28 apr 2008, at 06.36, Mark Davis wrote:
> I'll give a concrete case. Let's suppose that IDNA 2008 is issued
> based on
> Unicode 5.1, and that in the version corresponding to U5.2, PVALID
> updated to include MODIFIER LETTER RHOTIC HOOK (and it was removed
If that change is made in Unicode between 5.1 and 5.2, then from my
personal point of view, then Unicode Consortium is not keeping the
level on promise regarding stability that I hope they do.
But if that change has to be made by Unicode Consortium between 5.1
and 5.2, then the tables document should be updated in sync with the
deployment of Unicode 5.2, and I think the codepoint should be added
to the backward compatibility list as DISALLOWED overriding the change
made in Unicode Consortium.
But, of course, when the tables RFC is overridden by a new one, then
of course a decision can be made by the IETF to stay in sync with
Unicode Consortium and allow a backward incompatible change to the
A big, hard decision. Very very very difficult decision to make given
the implications in the DNS.
I do know though UTC is very very aware of the implications of making
incompatible changes, including legal implications regarding
registrations in the DNS. Because we have had this discussion before.
More information about the Idna-update