WG Review: Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (Revised) (idnabis)

[Vint Cerf]

the method of specification of the permitted character space made  
normative reference to Unicode 3.2

we are trying to escape that kind of binding in the future.

vint

On Apr 8, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:

> Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> writes:
>
>> It is believed that the first attempt in 2003 did not adequately deal
>> with several key issues including Unicode version-independence.
>
> Could someone remind me why IDNA2003 couldn't be updated in a minimal
> fashion to reference Unicode 5.1 instead of 3.2?  It's not like it  
> is a
> huge amount of work for every new Unicode version.
>
> Remember, the IDNA WG in 2003 chose consciously to reference a
> particular Unicode version, for reasons that still are valid.  It  
> didn't
> happen by accident.
>
> /Simon