John's statement is the one that is in the current working drafts, and in my opinion the correct strategy. We should not be in a position where the RFC needs to be rev'ed with each new version of Unicode.<br><br>Mark<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:19 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 4:45 PM -0500 3/7/08, John C Klensin wrote:<br>
>--On Friday, 07 March, 2008 13:03 -0800 Paul Hoffman<br>
><<a href="mailto:phoffman@imc.org">phoffman@imc.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Just to be clear: this is not just browsers. All applications<br>
>> that use IDNA2003 (mail programs, IM clients, and so on) will<br>
>> need to have the self-update property described above,<br>
>> assuming that we adopt the "mapping is done in the<br>
>> application" idea.<br>
><br>
>Paul,<br>
><br>
>One needs this even without the "mapping is done in the<br>
>application" rule.<br>
><br>
>What requires it is getting rid of the rule that unassigned code<br>
>points are looked up.<br>
<br>
</div>This goes back to a comment you made earlier today about the way I<br>
stated "(a)". I said:<br>
<br>
a) Update base character set from Unicode 3.2 to Unicode 5.0 or 5.1<br>
<br>
You said:<br>
<br>
a) Update base character set from Unicode 3.2 to Unicode version-agnostic<br>
<br>
Those two are quite different statements, and the group needs to<br>
decide which, if either, it wants to achieve.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Idna-update mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Mark