IDN uses unicode because...
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Wed Jul 9 02:56:55 CEST 2008
--On Tuesday, 08 July, 2008 11:15 -0700 Kenneth Whistler
<kenw at sybase.com> wrote:
> For the offending paragraph in section 1.4 of the IDNA
> Rationale, how about just deleting all the cutesiness and
> going with something *very* straightforward:
> IDNA uses the Unicode character repertoire, for continuity
> with IDNA2003.
> That is more appropriate, IMO, in the rationale document,
> than allusions to April 1 RFC's or any statements, positive
> or negative about how one judges the status of Unicode as
> a standard.
My apologies for the delay in responding -- I've been tied up
with something else and just got to read this thread.
The above suggested change has been implemented in the working
draft (I expect to have new drafts of "rationale" and "protocol"
posted before the cutoff next Monday). It seems to do the
needed job well without reaching into areas that open or retain
Just for the information of anyone who was curious about why
text on the "why Unicode?" subject was present at all, it was in
response to feedback and questions from a few communities who
argued that Unicode was not particularly optimal and so why
didn't we use X, for some value of X (real, potential, or
fantasy). My recollection is that you and/or Mark actually
signed off of the text that was used at some stage, but it was a
while ago and that recollection may be of something else.
In any event, at this stage I believe that the original text is
really part of a "what could we have done instead" discussion,
and that discussion, or a writeup of it, especially with regard
to fundamental decisions made for IDNA2003, is not part of the
WG's scope. I think that belief is consistent with most of the
other comments in recent days (although I haven't read quite all
More information about the Idna-update