Follow-up to Monday's discussion of digits

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Vint, John, Paf, All,

On the question of what to do about the code points in the ranges

U+0030..U+0039,
U+0660..U+0669,
U+06F0..U+06F9,

I think that allowing only the first range is incorrect.

I think that allowing all three ranges is correct if a mechanism for 
equivalency exists.

Assuming that no equivalence mechanism exists, for whatever rational, I 
think that allowing the first range, and only one of the second two 
ranges, is sufficient.

Outside of the protocol, registries are free to implement a 
registry-local policy, which may restrict code points in a label to one 
range only, or one of two ranges, where one is in the U+0030..U+0039 
range, but not both of the ranges U+0660..U+0669 and U+06F0..U+06F9.

As I mentioned yesterday, and as the jabber scribe correctly summarized:

ajsaf at jabber.org Eric: reject latin-only
ajsaf at jabber.org accept proposal for no mix between extended and 
non-extended
ajsaf at jabber.org but overboard to go further

There are, as John rebutted, buggy input methods, but that can't be 
controlling.

Eric