New version, draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-02.txt, available
newcat at icu.ac.kr
Fri Jun 15 06:57:41 CEST 2007
Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>>> Can you recommend specific scripts that you think should have the
>>> "Stable" status?
>> No; it's not my area of expertise. I comment merely as an
>> implementor, for whom the current list looks concerning.
>>> The fact that the CJK scripts are in MAYBE YES is probably the
>>> biggest contributor to the sheer number of characters there. But I
>>> have no idea whether there are known issues with them that should be
>>> solved first.
>> Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this what RFC 3743 addresses?
> The JET guidelines actually give some reasonably powerful tools for
> specifying which characters a particular registry wants to permit in
> domain names it registers, with the possibility to specify some (but
> not all) language-specific constraints and adaptions.
> But they don't specify which characters to permit, and the
> specification language used is applied at the codepoint level, not at
> the Unicode property level.
Seen from the viewpoint of 3743, the whole set of CJK characters in
Unicode does not fit well as a repertoire from which a label can be
built as practically usable. By extracting a subset and applying (often
excessive) protections, we can generate a label (and its variants that
are regarded as equivalent) that is "more" usable (or useful to suppress
> So it's less helpful than one might think in this particular endeavor.
As far as I know, RFC 3743 introduces a couple of tools that are
orthogonal to this endeavor. I don't believe that there is a nice way to
incorporate those tools into this table building process.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update