Consensus Call Tranche 8 Summary - Addendum

[Marcos Sanz/Denic]

> One idea I just had was to create a category HISTORIC.
> While this category would be equivalent to PROTOCOL-VALID
> for the protocol, it would clearly give some information
> to registries out there. Because it would not mean any
> decision with regards to protocol, it might be easier
> for us to come forward with some guidelines on what
> to put into HISTORIC, easier than it was with MAYBE
> and friends.

Although such categorization might be useful, I don't find that the 
definition of such a category *within the IDNA standard* appropriate. 
Isn't there within the Unicode Standard already a definition of "obsolete 
character" in the sense of "historical character" (not to be confused with 
a deprecated character)? Obsolete characters in the sense of "historical" 
are at least mentioned in Unicode 5.0, Chapter 3.4, D13.

If such a concept actually already exists, the message to the registries 
out there could plainly be: "These characters are PVALID within IDNA, but 
before they are included in your positive list for registration, check out 
the Unicode Standard to find out if they are historical within your 
context. If they are, caveats apply."

Best regards,
Marcos