Historic scripts as MAYBE?
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Tue Apr 29 00:24:19 CEST 2008
Debbie Garside skrev:
> I have to say that I agree with Mark. I think he is very much on the
> right track. I do not think DISALLOWED should be set in stone.
> We, in this forum, do not have sufficient knowledge of possible future
> use to do so.
<curmudgeon hat on>
as I said in our Mountain View meeting, eliminating MAYBE can very
easily lead us to discover that we have turned DISALLOWED into MAYBE.
The words you used in Mountain View, Mark, were that it would take a
"major disaster" before we had to turn a codepoint that was DISALLOWED
into ALLOWED. On that common understanding, we agreed that we could live
without the MAYBE categories, and just have DISALLOWED, ALLOWED,
UNASSIGNED and the context rule categories.
I agree that we need to document when, how and why we will allow turning
DISALLOWED into ALLOWED, and by what procedure we will tell all the
users of burned-in-ROM applications that there now exist DNS names they
can't look up.
I hope we don't need to go there. But I'm not optimistic.
More information about the Idna-update