Consensus Call Tranche 8 (Character Adjustments)

[Patrik Fältström]

On 16 okt 2008, at 06.08, Martin Duerst wrote:

> I had a look at the document again. For those points of the
> proposal where it disagrees with what we currently have,
> the words "not needed" are used. Nothing that even comes
> close to words such as "harmful", "confusing", or the like
> appears for points 1 and 2. The word "confusing appears for
> point 3, Hangul Compatibility Jamo, which we already disallow.
>
> Of course writing and reading such documents is always frought
> with difficulties, but I don't think that the hypothesis that
> the authors understand the difference between "we don't need
> them" and "these are dangerous" is far-fetched.

Fair. Thanks Martin for taking time to read this document again.

This because I think having an IETF wg make a decision about consensus  
that is _against_ a proposal from a formal organisation like NIDA that  
say they have been running a consensus driven process in Korea with  
participants from Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (National  
Body of ISO and IEC), the National Institute of The Korean Language,  
etc, is serious.

If we had a similar situation in Sweden where IETF ruled against what  
similar consensus driven process in Sweden about Swedish...well, I  
would start asking serious questions on how consensus in IETF was  
reached.

So, I am as editor of the tables document neutral in the issue. I just  
envision that for 8.c, we will get questions given what the consensus  
seems to be at the moment.

    Patrik

> Regards,    Martin.
>
> At 04:31 08/10/16, Patrik F舁tstr� wrote:
>>
>> On 15 okt 2008, at 20.36, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:20:05PM +0200, Patrik F舁tstr� 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
>
>