The real issue: interopability, and a proposal (Was: Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma)

Harald Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Thu Dec 3 10:14:07 CET 2009


Shawn Steele wrote:
> Mark corrected his statement to unassigned (I think, I deleted the note).  
>
> Obviously "these 4 characters" are an unexpected case, but do we think there's much risk of DISALLOWED becoming PVALID in the future?  I'd thought we'd attempted to mitigate against that.
>   
In earlier discussions, I have heard this described as a "disaster 
scenario".
Disasters do happen.
> -Shawn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Mayrhofer [mailto:alexander.mayrhofer at nic.at] 
> Sent: ,  02,  2009 2:20
> To: Shawn Steele; Mark Davis ☕; Vint Cerf
> Cc: patrik at frobbit.se; harald at alvestrand.no; idna-update at alvestrand.no; lisa.dusseault at gmail.com; duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
> Subject: RE: The real issue: interopability, and a proposal (Was: Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma)
>
>   
>> I think that's Mark's point.  He was following the previous logic and 
>> saying that if you can't map PVALID, then you shouldn't map DISALLOWED 
>> because they could become PVALID.
>> Eg: effectively what's happening to eszett.
>>     
>
> Ok, i got it - you mean that DISALLOWED characters *could* become PVALID in future revisions of the protocol, and cause similar transition problems like those we experience now. 
>
> Alex
>   




More information about the Idna-update mailing list