Consensus Call Tranche 8 (Character Adjustments)

[John C Klensin]

--On Thursday, 16 October, 2008 10:16 +0900 Martin Duerst
<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:

>> More generally, those two characters have been extensively
>> discussed, both on and off-list.  In the case of Eszett (8.a)
>> the German orthographic situation is clear and the top-level
>> registries who are likely to be most affected understand the
>> transition issues (either way) and are willing to deal with
>> them.  In the Sigma case, the current registry preference is
>> to preserve the IDNA2003 mapping as part of the protocol (see
>> forthcoming note).  
> 
> As far as I understand, that would be a 180 degrees turn from
> the consensus call position that we are just working on, yes?

Actually, it would be a 180 degree turn from the much earlier
and broader decision to eliminate all mappings from the protocol
and to make transformations between U-labels and A-labels fully
reversible without loss of information.  It is, however,
consistent with the position Vaggelis suggests and requests in
the note he posted today; I was just trying to identify that
preference in my note, not advocate for it.

    john