I agree as well. I think the most we should do is point to references so that registries can take that information into account if they wish, but not bake it into the protocol.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:49 AM, 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 12:07 AM -0400 4/28/08, John C Klensin wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
It also seems to me that, in the general case, the letters,<br>
combining marks, and digits of "archaic" scripts are no more<br>
likely to be harmful than the letters, combining marks, and<br>
digits of ones that see more contemporary usage. Excluding<br>
them would be a perfectly reasonable candidate for a registry<br>
restriction. I would imagine that no registry with a very large<br>
registration scope and a good sense of balance and<br>
responsibility would want to permit them. But such registry<br>
restrictions are a very different situation from disallowing the<br>
scripts.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
That works for me, and seems less likely to cause anguish than disallowing them in the protocol.<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Idna-update mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">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