Historic scripts as MAYBE?
mark.davis at icu-project.org
Mon Apr 28 19:48:48 CEST 2008
I agree as well. I think the most we should do is point to references so
that registries can take that information into account if they wish, but not
bake it into the protocol.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org> wrote:
> At 12:07 AM -0400 4/28/08, John C Klensin wrote:
> > It also seems to me that, in the general case, the letters,
> > combining marks, and digits of "archaic" scripts are no more
> > likely to be harmful than the letters, combining marks, and
> > digits of ones that see more contemporary usage. Excluding
> > them would be a perfectly reasonable candidate for a registry
> > restriction. I would imagine that no registry with a very large
> > registration scope and a good sense of balance and
> > responsibility would want to permit them. But such registry
> > restrictions are a very different situation from disallowing the
> > scripts.
> That works for me, and seems less likely to cause anguish than disallowing
> them in the protocol.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update