New version, draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-02.txt, available
patrik at frobbit.se
Wed Jun 20 10:27:39 CEST 2007
On 20 jun 2007, at 10.12, Michael Everson wrote:
> Harder in what way?
> I don't think you can get away with updating without human
> intervention, discussion, and decision. The writing systems of the
> world are not tidy.
> If you take this notion on board and embrace it, I think you will
> be more comfortable about updating to future versions of Unicode.
The Unicode Consortium have already today a process when adding
codepoints to decide on the property values that today exists.
I see a big difference between:
- Having the IETF use those properties and calculate what
codepoints can be used in IDN
- Having IETF ask Unicode Consortium to define a new property,
and learn how to evaluate for every codepoint added what property
value it should have
So, starting to have rules for individual codepoints will be a
completely different kind of thing than an algorithm based on
existing properties, and one of the reasons IDNA is locked today to
I.e. I am extremely nervous implications will be that IDNA200x vill
be locked to Unicode 5.0 because of this (or 5.1 or whatever fixed
version) just like IDNA we have today.
I was hoping the existing properties would be enough for doing
IDNA200x, and I have still not given up. If the Unicode people tell
me that is not possible, then things changes quite drastically.
Yes, I have heard you personally (and others) say that one have to
have exceptions here and there, but I have still been hoping we do
not have to have that. We have sort of had this discussion before,
but never really dived into the question of "what happens if we do
NOT have the exceptions, how bad is that" and compare with the
implications of doing inspection on codepoint level. Is it worth it
(regardless of what path we choose)?
This is definitely the time when we should have the discussion.
More information about the Idna-update