Consensus Call Tranche 8 (Character Adjustments)

Andrew Sullivan ajs at commandprompt.com
Tue Oct 14 19:22:44 CEST 2008


On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 05:25:27AM -0400, Vint Cerf wrote:
> Consensus Call Tranche 8 (character adjustments)
>
> Place your reply here: [NO]
>
> COMMENTS:

> (8.a) Make Eszett Protocol-Valid per list discussion.
>
> (8.b) Make Greek final sigma Protocol-Valid per list
> discussion.

Since the call is all-or-nothing, I have to respond "no".  On these
two, I have no opinion; I don't feel sufficiently qualified to say
whether these individual characters should be altered.  My
understanding is that, because they are consistent with the tables
approach that we are taking, the only reason to exclude them would be
historical.  Since the unhappiness with some of those historical
decisions is part of the justification for the current work, it seems
to me that these ought to be allowed (although I wonder whether 8.b
ought to have a context rule).

> (8.c) Disallow conjoining Hangul jamo per recommendation from
> KRNIC and others, permitting only precomposed syllables.

This appears to open the character-by-character decision making that
we already ruled out.  As Mark Davis argues, if we accept this
restriction then we probably need to re-open the discussions about
obsolete scripts, &c.  It sounds to me very like a registry policy.
The argument that some people will get that registry policy wrong has
already been floated, and we rejected it.  Indeed, if we don't reject
that premise, then all of the local mapping approach that we've taken
should be tossed out, and we should go back to strict mapping in the
protocol.

A


-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/


More information about the Idna-update mailing list