Comments on IDNAbis issues-05

[Patrik Fältström]

On 13 jan 2008, at 19.48, John C Klensin wrote:

>> The best alternative would be to simply have all the
>> non-historic scripts have the same status in
>> *draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-03.txt*<http://www.ietf.org/i
>> nternet-drafts/draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-03.txt>, by
>> moving the non-historic scripts to the same status as Latin,
>> Greek, and Cyrillic.
>
> Only if one believes that the IDN implications of using all of
> those scripts, and the restrictions that need to be applied,
> are as well understood as they are for Latin, Greek, and
> Cyrillic.  Some of the language communities (and I mean
> "language" here and not "script") do not believe that.

Do we have any agreement on this issue? I am updating the -tables-  
document now, and want to know what the final say is.

I do so far not hear we can treat all scripts equal. That said, I also  
see a request change for a codepoint in the Greek script on the  
Unicore list, which for me say that Greek is not much more stable than  
other scripts (sure, it would move the codepoint from Greeek to  
Inherited, which might be a nightmare by itself if we take that into  
account...).

    Patrik