Comments on IDNAbis issues-05

[Mark Davis]

This is the key remaining issue -- see my other messages of today.

Note: I'll be in India next week, and won't be able to really respond until
after I get back.

Mark

On Jan 15, 2008 5:42 AM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20080119/1ad1f60d/attachment.html