IDNNever.txt

[Avri Doria]

Hi Vint,

I obviously missed the conflagration.  I will go back and check  
archives to see if i can find the signs and reasons for it.

In the meantime, I am not trying to burn anything, just trying to  
understand the reason for such decisions.  Are they technical?   
policy? something else altogether?  Is it the single script per label  
rule?  A homograph problem?

If this isn't the right place-time to ask such questions, where and  
when is?  If making the answer public is too risky, can someone give  
me the right clue privately (though I don't know why we should ever  
be afraid to talk of the reasons for things in public).  Is the  
reason perhaps documented in some i-d/rfc somewhere? I think it  
certainly should be if the question is so dangerous.

Just looking for a clue on why the strict prohibition/avoidance.  I  
got to the question in a quest to look for answers for non literate  
users - an extension of the ML problem and if there is a technical  
answer i would like to know.

thanks.

a.

On 9 feb 2007, at 20.01, Vint Cerf wrote:

> Avri,
>
> Unless you want to start another conflagration, please accept that  
> there are
> extremely solid reasons for putting some symbols into this  
> category. There
> are others that must be accepted and a third category which is  
> basically not
> well enough understood to know but should not be allowed in until the
> uncertainties are resolved.
>
> Vint
>
>
>
>
> Vinton G Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist
> Google
> Regus Suite 384
> 13800 Coppermine Road
> Herndon, VA 20171
>
> +1 703 234-1823
> +1 703-234-5822 (f)
>
> vint at google.com
> www.google.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:45 PM
> To: idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: IDNNever.txt
>
> Hi,
>
> I am sort of knew to this level of the discussion but am wondering  
> at the
> extent of the list.  e.g I have been curious why some of the  
> symbols would
> not be allowed.  I tend to look at the possibility of symbolic  
> labels as
> offering a possible alternative for non literate people on special
> appliances.
>
> Are there technical issues that make these problematic?  Or is this  
> a policy
> decision that is being encapsulated into the technical solution?
>
> thanks
> a.
>
>
> On 2 feb 2007, at 21.37, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
>>
>> For conservative criteria for what to absolutely, positively  
>> guarantee
>> are in the never, never, ever category, I have started with:
>>
>> 1. cp != NFKC(cp)
>> 2. cp has Pattern_Syntax property
>> 3. cp has Pattern_White_Space property 4. cp has White_Space property
>> 5. cp has Variation_Selector property 6. cp has
>> Noncharacter_Code_Point property 7. cp has General_Category=Cf
>> (Unicode format controls) 8. cp has General_Category=Cc (ISO  
>> controls)
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>