New version, draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-02.txt, available

JFC Morfin jefsey at
Tue Jun 12 15:53:55 CEST 2007

Dear Harald,
you obviously measure the political impact of such a restriction not 
being very precisely documented.
IDNA made a distinction between countries on the ASCII TLD basis. 
IMHO, if IDNAbis only enlarges the basis of this split, the IGF will 
simply conclude that the global approach is inadequate and call for 
another architecture.

At 14:10 12/06/2007, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>I disagree about the usefulness of Rule H "Stable scripts", which
>>attempts to give IDN primacy to Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic on
>>the grounds that they "have encodings [that] are stable enough
>>for use in IDNs." On the contrary, many of the issues addressed
>>by some of the other rules (instability under NFKC(cp) and
>>instability under casefold(cp)) are most pronounced and problematical
>>precisely for the *Latin* script, whereas many of the scripts
>>supposedly "not stable enough" have no casing issues and few
>>if any NFKC issues. Furthermore, I consider it silly and
>>a complete non-starter to go out with a draft definition of
>>a property for defining what characters are suitable for IDNs,
>>but which sticks basic Japanese all in the MAYBE category.
>I believe the intent of this is to communicate that:
>- We (as in "the community", not "the editing team") have 
>experienced that a number of scripts have issues that are not 
>resolved, or not completely resolved, at this time.
>- For some scripts, we're pretty certain there are no issues - or, 
>rather, that the community's settled down to a specific set of 
>tradeoffs that are unlikely to change.
>The rules here are relatively new, and the exact way in which 
>they're going to interact with these scripts isn't knowable without 
>doing a fairly detailed review. Of course, the review might be short 
>for cases where there are no casing problems, no joining/nonjoining 
>problems, no problems with combining characters, directionality and 
>so on - the singling out of the LGC scripts is done just because 
>we're fairly confident about them.
>If you're fairly confident that there are no issues to resolve with 
>basic Japanese, and basic Japanese is a single value (or set of 
>values?) of the Script property, then adding that (those?) to the 
>initial set would seem like a Good Idea.
>This draft is still conspicuously silent on the question of who gets 
>to determine when scripts move into the Rule H "stable" set. It 
>tries to make it very clear that there *will* be such movement.
>                       Harald
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list