Comments on the Unicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft

[Mark Davis]

My take on the proposal is that no action should be taken in the Tables
document, because either the characters already have the requested status,
or no change should be made. Here are the categories:

   1. Hangul Jamo. These are required for old Hangul. This list has come to
   the conclusion that restrictions of this type are for the registry, not for
   the protocol. Otherwise we'd also exclude other historic characters,
   identified by property and listed in Table 4 of
   http://unicode.org/reports/tr31/#Specific_Character_Adjustments
   2. Bangjeom. These are cherry-picking some characters in
   the CJK_Symbols_And_Punctuation block, with no strong reason to do so.
   1. see
      http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=[:Block=CJK_Symbols_And_Punctuation
      :]
      3. Hangul Compatibility Jamo. These are already DISALLOWED (not NFKC)
   4. Hangul codepoints in Enclosed.  These are already DISALLOWED (not
   NFKC)
   5. Hangul Syllables. These are already PVALID.
   6. Halfwidth Hangul variants. These are already PVALID.

Mark


On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:

> Thank you very much for this. I will have a look at this and come back
> with what I think the suggested changes to the -tables document are.
>
>    Patrik
>
> ______________________________ _________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20080728/eeac5eb2/attachment.htm