Consensus Call Tranche 8 (Character Adjustments)

[Patrik Fältström]

On 15 okt 2008, at 20.36, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:20:05PM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>
>> Understood. Note that if we look at the proposals eszett and the one
>> from korea, the eszett is an exception, while the korean proposal  
>> uses
>> the Unicode properties.
>
> Hmm.  If this is the case (and at least in the Korean proposal, my
> notes make me think that we have a different meaning of "Unicode
> properties" in the above, but I'm certainly not willing to assert that
> I'm right), then I'm even more confused than I at first thought I was.
> So I'm going to shut up about this topic, but I _still_ have to say
> "no", since the consensus call said explictly that silence would be
> counted as support (and I obviously can't support what I don't
> understand).

I understand your statement, and view.

I am just confused over the reaction in general from people.

I have attached the Korean proposal, which in short is:

1. Add Hangul Jamo to blocks to disallow (i.e. "2.1.4 IgnorableBlocks  
(D)")
2. Add two codepoints (that is "Inherited", but not DISALLOWED by  
other means) to DISALLOWED

I.e. I must correct myself when I said that the proposal is only using  
Unicode properties. I can not (but I am tired...) see how to catch the  
two Bangjeom codepoints U+302E and U+302F without using exceptions.

People interested in this discussion should also re-read the messages  
from Ken where he explain his view is that this is something that  
should be expressed by a registry policy.

Message-Id: <200807281913.m6SJDpL01810 at birdie.sybase.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:13:51 -0700 (PDT)

    Patrik

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2008-07-28 - Comments on the Unicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 103674 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081015/29d2c432/attachment-0001.pdf