Comments on the Unicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft
mail at edmon.info
Tue Jul 29 14:28:37 CEST 2008
Perhaps it is better to view it in a separate light.
If we look at the blocks for CJK Radicals and strokes:
2E80..2E99 ; DISALLOWED # CJK RADICAL REPEAT..CJK RADICAL RAP
2E9B..2EF3 ; DISALLOWED # CJK RADICAL CHOKE..CJK RADICAL C-SIMPLIFIED
2F00..2FD5 ; DISALLOWED # KANGXI RADICAL ONE..KANGXI RADICAL FLUTE
31C0..31E3 ; DISALLOWED # CJK STROKE T..CJK STROKE Q
We see that they are disallowed. Similarly, Yi radicals are disallowed.
As I understand it Jamo could be considered in similar light, and therefore,
it seems there is good basis to treat them similarly.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Vint Cerf
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:10 PM
> To: Stéphane Bortzmeyer
> Cc: idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Comments on the Unicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft
> I did not intend for these to be interpreted as "the same" at all - I
> intended to imply that these were two different ways of dealing with
> problem characters.
> On Jul 29, 2008, at 7:39 AM, Stéphane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 01:27:15AM -0700,
> > Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote
> > a message of 38 lines which said:
> >> the issue might be better stated as "can these characters be so
> >> readily used to cause confusionas to merit their banishment at
> >> protocol level or warned against at "registration time" at all
> >> levels in domain name hierarchy?
> > But these two solutions are quite different. In the DNS, today, there
> > are no "banishment at protocol level" even between confusable
> > characters.
> > Guidelines for registries ("Allowing the registration of <U+xxxx> is
> > not a good idea") are a different thing. They are already used
> > (section 3.5 "Preferred name syntax" of RFC 1034) and the work of the
> > arabic script users is a good example of a work that should be used
> > that way for IDNA.
> > With "banishment at protocol level", we would never had the underscore
> > for SRV records, it would have been forbidden...
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update