IDNA applications (was: RE: sharp s (Eszett))

[Paul Hoffman]

At 2:30 PM -0800 3/7/08, Mark Davis wrote:
>John's statement is the one that is in the current working drafts, 
>and in my opinion the correct strategy. We should not be in a 
>position where the RFC needs to be rev'ed with each new version of 
>Unicode.

We're not. There were multiple Unicode versions between 3.2 and 5.1 
and no change in IDNA. We choose when and if we make changes to IDNA 
based on many factors. Becoming Unicode version-agnostic is one 
choice; tying ourselves to a version knowing that we might want to 
update later is another.