This was discussed at some length a while ago. I really don't think it belongs in the IDNA specifications, since the information is hard to maintain, and is really informative -- not required for the protocol.<div><br>
</div><div>One could give a pointer to Table 4 of <a href="http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/#Specific_Character_Adjustments">http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr31/#Specific_Character_Adjustments</a> and/or to <a href="http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/#General_Security_Profile">http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr39/#General_Security_Profile</a> (we plan to update that section to be appropriate for IDNA2008).</div>
<div><br><div>Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Martin Duerst <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp">duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">At 23:10 08/10/21, Marcos Sanz/Denic wrote:<br>
>> One idea I just had was to create a category HISTORIC.<br>
>> While this category would be equivalent to PROTOCOL-VALID<br>
>> for the protocol, it would clearly give some information<br>
>> to registries out there. Because it would not mean any<br>
>> decision with regards to protocol, it might be easier<br>
>> for us to come forward with some guidelines on what<br>
>> to put into HISTORIC, easier than it was with MAYBE<br>
>> and friends.<br>
><br>
>Although such categorization might be useful, I don't find that the<br>
>definition of such a category *within the IDNA standard* appropriate.<br>
>Isn't there within the Unicode Standard already a definition of "obsolete<br>
>character" in the sense of "historical character" (not to be confused with<br>
>a deprecated character)? Obsolete characters in the sense of "historical"<br>
>are at least mentioned in Unicode 5.0, Chapter 3.4, D13.<br>
<br>
</div>D13 talks about deprecated characters. These are characters that are<br>
obsolete in the history of the Unicode standard (e.g. formatting-like<br>
stuff that once seemed like a good idea to encode, but where it was<br>
later found out that it was just creating nothing but problems), which<br>
is totally different from characters used to write historic (in the history<br>
of human culture) texts. What you are looking for would be in Section 3.5,<br>
but I haven't found it. It may be possible to put something together<br>
rather easily based on script blocks, but I guess that would be rather<br>
rough, because many script blocks contain both characters in modern<br>
use and historic characters.<br>
<br>
Regards, Martin.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
>If such a concept actually already exists, the message to the registries<br>
>out there could plainly be: "These characters are PVALID within IDNA, but<br>
>before they are included in your positive list for registration, check out<br>
>the Unicode Standard to find out if they are historical within your<br>
>context. If they are, caveats apply."<br>
><br>
>Best regards,<br>
>Marcos<br>
<br>
<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University<br>
#-#-# <a href="http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp" target="_blank">http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp</a> mailto:<a href="mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp">duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp</a><br>
<br>
</div><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></div></div>