KATS (Korean Agency for Technology and Standards)'s Comments on theUnicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft

[Vint Cerf]

ken will the new "old Jamos" coming next year have property(ies) that  
would allow them to be excluded by algorithm (Patrik's tables) or  
could this end up being a form of context rule?

vint


NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
202-370-5637
vint at google.com




On Oct 31, 2008, at 7:23 PM, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

> O.k., since this is being rapidly pushed for a consensus
> decision, I will weigh in as well.
>
> I think this entire discussion has been pushed forward with
> a large number of misconceptions.
>
> I contend that this is *not* a normalization issue at all.
>
> I contend that this *is* a phishing/spoofing issue, as is
> explicitly explained in the KATS input document that
> started this thread. The examples in that document are
> all phishing issues that result from the fact that
> Old Hangul jamo characters contain a number of explicit
> variant letters of some historic importance for Old Hangul,
> but which are confusable with the standard shapes of
> the modern jamos.
>
> As a phishing issue, I also strongly agree with Andrew
> Sullivan's original contention. This, by rights, should be
> a policy issue, and not a protocol issue -- and effectively
> what the group is moving towards here is a character-by-character
> position on ruling out spoofability -- a position that it
> categorically rejected some time ago when dealing with
> similar issues for spoofability within and across other
> scripts in the standard.
>
> Also, I strongly disagree with John Klensin's summary
> about "letter" status for Hangul and his attempt to
> use that as a basis to make a principled distinction
> in this case for jamos. Kent Karlsson's analysis was
> correct.
>
> All that said, I do not think this is worth breaking
> consensus in the group about completion of the
> protocol documents, because there is no
> burning need to include Old Hangul in IDN's anyway.
> (But then there was no burning need to include
> any of the other historic scripts, either, nor many
> hundreds of confusable historic letters for Latin,
> for that matter.)
>
> So personally, I would not oppose making an exception
> for Jamos, as long as everybody is clear that it
> is nothing more than that: a special case exception
> to the other principles of the table derivation.
> Just don't bother trying to patch this up as some
> general principle: it is what it is -- an exception
> for Jamos for Korean.
>
> So just add the range U+1100..U+11FF to the tables
> document as DISALLOWED and be done with it.
>
> Oh, lest I forget... you won't *quite* be done with
> it. Assuming that the tables document and the rest of
> the IDNA protocol documents are finally completed this
> year or early next, be prepared to start the revision
> of the tables document next year, because there are
> two more blocks of Old Hangul jamos coming in
> Unicode 5.2: U+A960..U+A97F and U+D7B0..U+D7FF,
> courtesy of a character encoding request from KATS.
> One of the reasons why I wanted to treat the exclusion
> of jamos as a policy issue, rather than something
> baked into the tables document for the protocol was
> precisely because we haven't heard the last of jamos.
> Those two blocks will be arriving in Unicode 5.2, and
> there is always the possibility that some historian
> of Old Hangul may yet find a few more that need to
> be added in the indefinite future to the standard.
>
> --Ken
>
>
>
>> On 31 okt 2008, at 18.32, Dae Hyuk Ahn wrote:
>>
>>> I have exactly same opinion with John and Michael.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dae Hyuk Ahn. Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08. 10. 31 ¿ÀÈÄ 11:26, "Michael
>>> Everson" <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31 Oct 2008, at 14:06, John C Klensin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Finally, while we associated terms like "phishing" with our "leave
>>>> it to the registries" principle, I believe that the Korean case for
>>>> exclusion of Jamo has been clearly made and that we should not
>>>> attempt to fault (or punish) the rather considerable effort that  
>>>> has
>>>> been made here because they didn't understand the idiosyncrasies of
>>>> the vocabulary used in the WG.
>>>
>>> I also believe that a case for exclusion of Jamo has been clearly
>>> made.
>>>
>>> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081031/8b63c8df/attachment-0001.htm