<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 7:20 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><div class="Ih2E3d">
<div>At 7:04 PM -0700 4/27/08, Mark Davis wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">If historic scripts are to be excluded,
the up-to-date list recommended by the consortium for U5.1 is at<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/#Specific_Character_Adjustments" target="_blank">http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/#Specific_Character_Adjustments</a></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</div><div>Needing to be picky: where in that section are you talking about?
If you mean Table 4, I note that the table's description is:</div></div></blockquote><div><br>Yes, table 4.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Some characters are not in modern customary use, and thus
implementations may want to exclude them from identifiers. These are
historic and obsolete scripts, scripts used mostly liturgically, and
regional scripts used only in very small communities or with very
limited current usage.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>That's quite different than the just being
archaic/historic.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>True, but remember that there is no bright line with "archaic/historic". If you mean: "nobody uses it", then no script qualifies!<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite">(BTW, I'm strongly against restoring
MAYBE, for a number of reasons already discussed.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</div><div>No one has suggested that we do so.</div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite">Haven't heard back from Patrik as to why,
though, we couldn't in exceptional circumstances move characters from
DISALLOWED.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</div><div>I thought his answer to you was complete. I also agree with
him.</div></div></blockquote><div><br>His responses were not particularly informative, such as:<br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">This makes it impossible for application developers to filter, and
there is no way it is possible to control "registration" of DISALLOWED
codepoints, and the latter is the reason why application developers
have to filter out DISALLOWED codepoints completely.<br>
<br>
DISALLOWED is DISALLOWED. Forever. Period.</div> </div><div><br>It is hardly impossible for application developers to filter -- and anyone who filters with a hard-coded list is just simply going to miss anything that becomes valid after that hard-coded list is incorporated into the program, in any event.<br>
<br>My earlier remarks were:<br>
<br>
<div style="margin-left: 40px;">> Stability of invalid labels is actually not in play anyway; as new
characters get assigned, once-invalid labels become valid, and on a
regular basis as ever more characters are added to Unicode.<br>
</div>
<br>
I have gotten no reply back from my message of 5 days ago ("<span class="HcCDpe">Re: Stability of valid IDN labels")</span>. Without some concrete user scenerios making a compelling case, all we have a bald statement about unnamed "application creators". That is hardly the way to go about doing a specification.<br>
<br><br></div></div>-- <br>Mark