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

Martin Duerst duerst at
Mon Jun 18 09:45:50 CEST 2007

At 16:39 07/06/18, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>Martin Duerst wrote:

>> So what do you need in order to be able to do this?
>> What else, besides confusability, are you looking for?

>I'm looking for flat statement from you as an expert saying "The script <script identifier from Unicode goes here> is unproblematic, and should be in the list of scripts in rule H, section 2.8".
>So far, I've seen a lot of hand-wringing about the list of scripts being too short, the list of scripts being Europe-centric, the arguments for the list of scripts being too weak, the list of scripts including worrisome characters (IPA), but I have NOT seen ANY flat statement "script XXX is unproblematic and should be included".

Okay. I and others might be able to do this, but I think that
for this, we would need a definition of "unproblematic", e.g.
as follows:
For the purposes of this draft/memo/specification, a script is
considered unproblematic iff:
1) ...
2) ...
3) ...

Regards,   Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#       mailto:duerst at     

More information about the Idna-update mailing list