KATS (Korean Agency for Technology and Standards)'s Comments on theUnicode Codepoints and IDNA Internet-Draft

Andrew Sullivan ajs at shinkuro.com
Fri Oct 31 19:00:44 CET 2008


On 31-Oct-08, at 1:29 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> We have never agreed that we need to slavishly follow the
> Unicode properties and code point assignments.

Right, this part I agree with.  But we have been attempting to derive  
principles from them, I think.  That said,

> That is not about policy, in the sense in which you are using
> that term, but about what is, and is not, properly a "letter"
> from an IDN perspective.

the above makes sense to me, but this is the first time this  
distinction has been plain to me (in this discussion).

> general, it works.  My initial assumption, many weeks ago and
> based on my still-imperfect understanding of Hangul, was that it
> did not always work.   Mark and Ken corrected me and asserted
> that would work, and work always.  We have seen what appear to
> me to be convincing counterexamples to that assertion.   If we
> cannot depend on NFC to keep _all_ syllable forms unambiguous,
> then it seems to me that we need to supplement NFC with rules
> that prevent ambiguity.   As I understand it, those rules could
> take two forms.  One is the current KATS proposal, which
> excludes all of the Jamo, essentially because they are parts of
> letters and not letters.  The other would be to go through the
> Jamo, either character by character or in terms of the
> HangulSyllableType table and exclude the specific ones that are
> problematic with regard to normalization.

Assuming the examples do show that NFC does not always prevent  
ambiguity (and I agree that the examples do appear to show that), I  
can support a broader rule for the sake of simplicity.

Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for being obtuse.

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com






More information about the Idna-update mailing list