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

Mark Davis mark.davis at
Sat Mar 8 00:03:44 CET 2008

And the fact that there were multiple versions of Unicode with no update of
IDNA was a significant problem for anyone who needed the new characters.
Reformulating the RFC so that updates to a new Unicode version don't require
a new RFC is a significant advantage.


On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at> wrote:

> At 2:30 PM -0800 3/7/08, Mark Davis wrote:
> >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.
> We're not. There were multiple Unicode versions between 3.2 and 5.1
> and no change in IDNA. We choose when and if we make changes to IDNA
> based on many factors. Becoming Unicode version-agnostic is one
> choice; tying ourselves to a version knowing that we might want to
> update later is another.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list