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