And the fact that there were multiple versions of Unicode with no update of IDNA was a significant problem for anyone who needed the new characters. Reformulating the RFC so that updates to a new Unicode version don't require a new RFC is a significant advantage.<br>
<br>Mark<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Paul Hoffman <<a href="mailto:phoffman@imc.org">phoffman@imc.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">At 2:30 PM -0800 3/7/08, Mark Davis wrote:<br>
>John's statement is the one that is in the current working drafts,<br>
>and in my opinion the correct strategy. We should not be in a<br>
>position where the RFC needs to be rev'ed with each new version of<br>
>Unicode.<br>
<br>
</div>We're not. There were multiple Unicode versions between 3.2 and 5.1<br>
and no change in IDNA. We choose when and if we make changes to IDNA<br>
based on many factors. Becoming Unicode version-agnostic is one<br>
choice; tying ourselves to a version knowing that we might want to<br>
update later is another.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Mark