New version, draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-02.txt, available
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue Jun 19 13:50:14 CEST 2007
At 16:47 07/06/19, Patrik F$BgM(Btstr$BN(B wrote:
>On 19 jun 2007, at 04.45, Martin Duerst wrote:
>> So you want somebody to say that there will be no more bugs in
>> script X, and then you can add script X to the list? And you want
>> to base this on past number of bugs? Which way? If a lot of bugs
>> have been found, that may be an indication that there are not
>> too many more left. Or, if a lot of bugs have been found, that
>> may be an indication of more benig hidden.
>I want someone to say what scripts they want there. I have together
>with some people added Greek, Latin and Cyrillic. I have so far not
>heard any other suggestions.
>I think Harald (specifically, he even came up with a suggested use
>policy) and also John and also me, in different words, said that what
>we (all of us, including you) do NOT want to happen is that something
>that have ALWAYS end up getting the NEVER derived value. Or at least
>minimize that risk. Moving things from ALWAYS to NEVER will
>definitely create a situation where already registered domain names
>are no longer valid. Etc etc.
>Of course it MIGHT happen. Also with latin, greek and cyrillic. But I
>personally see that risk very very very very small. Enough to have
>latin, greek and cyrillic there.
>Now give me names of other scripts that are as stable.
Okay, let's give it one try.
The CJK Unified Ideographs block is stable. It has been there
since the beginning of Unicode, and is based on the unification
of well-used national standards (what's available in terms of
ideographs on an everyday PC (nowadays also mobile phone) in
China, Japan, or Korea). I at least do not know about any
kind of bug in this range.
There are quite a number of confusables (both prime-faice visibly
as well as semantically) due to various simplifications and the
large number of symbols as such. However, these can only be handled
by subsetting (e.g. in a national context) or bundling (e.g.
using RFC 3743). It is impossible to a-priori say that some of
them are not allowed, so all of them should go into the ALLOWED
Please note that this doesn't deal with additional blocks of
ideographs (Extension A, Extension B, ..., Compatibility),
because I cannot make the same statements for these as above.
Is a statement like the above what you are looking for?
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
More information about the Idna-update