mappings-01 and the general procedure

[Erik van der Poel]

I think it would be a good idea to move the normalization and NFC text
from section 5.2 of the protocol draft to section 5.3.

The order of the steps in the mappings draft should probably be
lower-casing, wide/narrow mapping, then NFC. These steps are performed
in this order in IDNA2003 too.

Erik

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 2:39 PM, John C Klensin<klensin at jck.com> wrote:
>
>
> --On Sunday, July 12, 2009 13:50 -0700 Erik van der Poel
> <erikv at google.com> wrote:
>
>>...
>> Also, I would prefer an IDNAbis that does not specify applying
>> NFC twice (once in the mappings draft and once in the protocol
>> draft). It doesn't seem necessary.
>
> I don't know if this is helpful, but Protocol does not specify
> "applying NFC".   It only specifies (in Section 5.2) that the
> string MUST be in NFC form before being processed further.   It
> would be reasonable for the notorious section 5.3 of Protocol to
> contain an explicit statement that the result of any
> preprocessing or mapping step must not produce a result that is
> not (still) in NFC form.  I think that is implied, but it might
> not be clear and is relevant whether the Mapping draft is
> retained and improved or dropped, so I'll add it to Protocol-13.
>
>
> So, if the mapping document specifies NFC as a last step, the
> language in Protocol would not require doing it again.   If the
> mapping document does not specify NFC as a last step, the
> Protocol requirement would essentially demand that NFC be
> applied (or at least verified which, as Mark has pointed out, is
> a low-impact and low-cost operation) before the string is
> processed further.
>
> My sense is therefore that, while the text should probably be
> improved in Protocol, Mapping, or both, we really do not have a
> problem here.
>
>   john
>
>