The real issue: interopability, and a proposal (Was: Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma)

[Shawn Steele]

Mark corrected his statement to unassigned (I think, I deleted the note).  

Obviously "these 4 characters" are an unexpected case, but do we think there's much risk of DISALLOWED becoming PVALID in the future?  I'd thought we'd attempted to mitigate against that.

-Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexander Mayrhofer [mailto:alexander.mayrhofer at nic.at] 
Sent: ,  02,  2009 2:20
To: Shawn Steele; Mark Davis ☕; Vint Cerf
Cc: patrik at frobbit.se; harald at alvestrand.no; idna-update at alvestrand.no; lisa.dusseault at gmail.com; duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Subject: RE: The real issue: interopability, and a proposal (Was: Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma)

> I think that's Mark's point.  He was following the previous logic and 
> saying that if you can't map PVALID, then you shouldn't map DISALLOWED 
> because they could become PVALID.
> Eg: effectively what's happening to eszett.

Ok, i got it - you mean that DISALLOWED characters *could* become PVALID in future revisions of the protocol, and cause similar transition problems like those we experience now. 

Alex