Archaic scripts (was: Re: New version: draft-ietf-idna-tables-01.txt)

[LB]

If I understand your internet engineers debate, your discussion
suggests that you consider that your proposal may be jeopardized by
5000 years old characters. If so, why would it not vulnerable to the
characters we will need in two years? All we know is that
classification systems historical (museum, university libraries,
research, etc. ...) who need a coherent system providing universal
interoperability between IRI, langtags, domain names networks used in
translation, and so on. will decide to develop their own solution.

Perhaps it is a good two-tier approach? Thus, there will be a limited
system proposed by the IETF and a generalized system that can
gradually emerge in MLTF. The only constraint is to keep the same
punycode for interoperability of domain names with the prefix "xn -".

I also understand that this is only the BCP for TLD managers, as the
concerned scripts are always supported by Unicode and punycode. This
enables the mobile phones to be simplified without infringing IDNA?

--
LB

2008/5/7 Michel Suignard <michelsu at windows.microsoft.com>:
> I totally disagree. To a large degree the IDNA2003 tenet of allowing everything but few characters is one of the reasons why we are going through this whole exercise of revising IDNA and excluding most non letters in IDNA 2008. Question really is do we extend the symbol exclusion to extinct scripts.
>
>  Michel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>  From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
>  Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:20 AM
>  To: idna-update at alvestrand.no
>  Subject: Re: Archaic scripts (was: Re: New version: draft-ietf-idna-tables-01.txt)
>
>  On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:08:43AM -0700, Michel Suignard wrote:
>  >
>  > Some of these plane 1 scripts add a huge number of characters that
>  > are symbolic/pictorial in nature, because in many cases they have
>  > not been fully deciphered. I really don't see the point in allowing
>  > them in a identifier scheme such as IDN.
>
>  If I am right in my understanding of what DISALLOWED means and what
>  the goals of IDNA2008 are, then I believe the right question is not,
>  "What is the point of allowing them in the identifier scheme?" but,
>  "What is the harm in allowing them in the identifier scheme?"  That
>  is, the "default" position should be "allowed in".
>
>  Best regards,
>
>  A
>  --
>  Andrew Sullivan
>  ajs at commandprompt.com
>  +1 503 667 4564 x104
>  http://www.commandprompt.com/