Consensus Call Tranche 3 (Permanence)

Kenneth Whistler kenw at sybase.com
Wed Oct 15 00:34:39 CEST 2008


> Consensus Call Tranche 3 (Permanence)
>
> Place your reply here: [YES or NO]

NO

> COMMENTS:

I concur with Mark's suggested rewording. The
statement should be strengthened for the guarantee
about PVALID.

The statement should be weakened a bit about the
DISALLOWED category. The very fact that we have been
having a long argument about whether LATIN SMALL LETTER
SHARP S should be moved from DISALLOWED to PVALID
should illustrate the problem. We can argue such
edge cases ahead of time, but there is simply no guarantee
that somebody isn't going to argue a year or two or five
from now for inclusion of one or more additional such characters --
without wanting to obsolete the entire protocol and
RFC.

--Ken






More information about the Idna-update mailing list