IDNA applications (was: RE: sharp s (Eszett))

[Mark Davis]

John's statement is the one that is in the current working drafts, and in my
opinion the correct strategy. We should not be in a position where the RFC
needs to be rev'ed with each new version of Unicode.

Mark

On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org> wrote:

> At 4:45 PM -0500 3/7/08, John C Klensin wrote:
> >--On Friday, 07 March, 2008 13:03 -0800 Paul Hoffman
> ><phoffman at imc.org> wrote:
> >
> >>  Just to be clear: this is not just browsers. All applications
> >>  that use IDNA2003 (mail programs, IM clients, and so on) will
> >>  need to have the self-update property described above,
> >>  assuming that we adopt the "mapping is done in the
> >>  application" idea.
> >
> >Paul,
> >
> >One needs this even without the "mapping is done in the
> >application" rule.
> >
> >What requires it is getting rid of the rule that unassigned code
> >points are looked up.
>
> This goes back to a comment you made earlier today about the way I
> stated "(a)". I said:
>
> a) Update base character set from Unicode 3.2 to Unicode 5.0 or 5.1
>
> You said:
>
> a) Update base character set from Unicode 3.2 to Unicode version-agnostic
>
> Those two are quite different statements, and the group needs to
> decide which, if either, it wants to achieve.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>



-- 
Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20080307/2ecccb79/attachment.html