Consensus Call Tranche 8 (Character Adjustments)

Martin Duerst duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu Oct 16 06:08:07 CEST 2008


I had a look at the document again. For those points of the
proposal where it disagrees with what we currently have,
the words "not needed" are used. Nothing that even comes
close to words such as "harmful", "confusing", or the like
appears for points 1 and 2. The word "confusing appears for
point 3, Hangul Compatibility Jamo, which we already disallow.

Of course writing and reading such documents is always frought
with difficulties, but I don't think that the hypothesis that
the authors understand the difference between "we don't need
them" and "these are dangerous" is far-fetched.

Regards,    Martin.

At 04:31 08/10/16, Patrik F$BgM(Btstr$B‹N(B wrote:
>
>On 15 okt 2008, at 20.36, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:20:05PM +0200, Patrik F$BgM(Btstr$B‹N(B wrote:
>>
>>> Understood. Note that if we look at the proposals eszett and the one
>>> from korea, the eszett is an exception, while the korean proposal  
>>> uses
>>> the Unicode properties.
>>
>> Hmm.  If this is the case (and at least in the Korean proposal, my
>> notes make me think that we have a different meaning of "Unicode
>> properties" in the above, but I'm certainly not willing to assert that
>> I'm right), then I'm even more confused than I at first thought I was.
>> So I'm going to shut up about this topic, but I _still_ have to say
>> "no", since the consensus call said explictly that silence would be
>> counted as support (and I obviously can't support what I don't
>> understand).
>
>I understand your statement, and view.
>
>I am just confused over the reaction in general from people.
>
>I have attached the Korean proposal, which in short is:
>
>1. Add Hangul Jamo to blocks to disallow (i.e. "2.1.4 IgnorableBlocks  
>(D)")
>2. Add two codepoints (that is "Inherited", but not DISALLOWED by  
>other means) to DISALLOWED
>
>I.e. I must correct myself when I said that the proposal is only using  
>Unicode properties. I can not (but I am tired...) see how to catch the  
>two Bangjeom codepoints U+302E and U+302F without using exceptions.
>
>People interested in this discussion should also re-read the messages  
>from Ken where he explain his view is that this is something that  
>should be expressed by a registry policy.
>
>Message-Id: <200807281913.m6SJDpL01810 at birdie.sybase.com>
>Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
>
>    Patrik
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp     



More information about the Idna-update mailing list