Consensus Call Tranche 8 (Character Adjustments)

Andrew Sullivan ajs at commandprompt.com
Tue Oct 14 22:41:15 CEST 2008


On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 04:17:56PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:

> Could you explain why you would require a context rule for Final
> Sigma without requiring one for Eszett?  

No :)  See my original remark about not being qualified to speak on
it.  I just don't know, which is why I said "I wonder" rather than "we
should".  

> I think the situation --and the comparison failures that would
> result if we don't deal with it-- makes a strong case for our
> disallowing either the Jamo or the Syllables.  The ccTLD
> registry and local experts strongly prefer that we disallow the
> Jamo, even though it means that some archaic Syllables and
> fanciful forms are disallowed as a consequence.   I think we
> just defer to them.

Well, this argument seems a strong one too.  This still makes me want
to say "no" on the consensus call, because now it is plain to me that
I don't understand the issue well enough to have an opinion.  (I'm
sure someone is tempted to remark that I must be having a familiar
feeling therefore.)  If the consensus call weren't structured so as to
count "unsure" as "yes", I might respond differently, of course.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/


More information about the Idna-update mailing list