tables document [Re: IDNA comments]
phoffman at imc.org
Sat Jul 12 20:38:06 CEST 2008
At 9:12 AM +0200 7/12/08, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> > 3. "It should be suitable for newer revisions of Unicode, as long
>> as the
>> Unicode properties on which it is based remain stable."
>> Replace by
>> "This is suitable for any newer versions of Unicod as well.
>> Changes in
>> Unicode properties that do not affect the outcome of this process
>> do not
>> affect IDN. For example, a character can move from So to Sm, or
>> from Lo to
>> Lu, without affecting the table results. Moreover, even if such
>> changes were
>> to result, the BackwardCompatible list (2.2.3.) will be adjusted to
>> ensure the stability of the results."
>Thanks. I will though probably in the last sentence not say "...will
>be..." but instead "...can be..." as my view is that at the point in
>time where such an unfortunate incompatibility is detected, this
>document has to be updated. At that update one can choose to either
>add the codepoint to 2.2.3 or not (in reality, choose to add to 2.2.3
>and update the document or not update the document but accept the
>Ok with people?
The "can be" works for me. Using "will be" makes it sound more like
it is acceptable for TUC to make unacceptable changes.
> > 8. Sort the following by value instead of code point, for clarity.
>> Ideally each value would be in its own subsection: PVALID,
>> 002D; CONTEXTO # HYPHEN-MINUS
>> 3007; PVALID # IDEOGRAPHIC NUMBER ZERO
>> 303B; CONTEXTO # VERTICAL IDEOGRAPHIC ITERATION MARK
>> 30FB; CONTEXTO # KATAKANA MIDDLE DOT
>Hmm...what do people think here? I can see reasons to have the
>codepoints (in the same script) "close" to each other (as it is now),
>while still of course understand this suggestion.
The list is not long enough for either ordering to be much of a problem.
>Should also the appendix be sorted in a different way (add an Appendix
>B in addition to existing Appendix A)?
A second appendix would be more confusing. I think the current
appendix is barely readable as it is. Fortunately, it is
More information about the Idna-update