I think it is a clear principle that any PVALID character cannot be mapped to a different character. So if eszett stays PVALID, then it can't be mapped. Conversely, if we decide that it should be mapped (as DENIC wants*) then we will remove it from PVALID.<br>
<br>I think a second clear principle is that for characters in U3.2, either we map precisely the same as IDNA2003, or we don't map at all.<br><br clear="all">Mark<br><br>* See <a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-March/003743.html">http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/2009-March/003743.html</a><br>
<pre>f) But if there is room for negotiation and mappings could be (again) part <br>of the standard, then we would like eszett to be mapped to "ss" to ensure <br>backwards compatibility.<br></pre>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 09:08, Cary Karp <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ck@nic.museum" target="_blank">ck@nic.museum</a>></span> 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>Quoting Mark:<br>
<br>
> In terms of exposition, however, I think the simplest choice of terminology<br>
> is that M-Label is anything that maps to a U-Label, including the identity<br>
> mapping.<br>
<br>
</div>This means that "weiß" is not an M-label. Is that what we want?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
/Cary<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>