Change requests to the table document -- pass them to me please!

Mark Davis mark at
Wed Mar 25 20:59:50 CET 2009


2009/3/25 Harald Alvestrand <harald at>

> Mark Davis wrote:
>> You didn't look back far enough, for example:
>> To that message I got no response from you, agreement or disagreement. As
>> I said in the meeting, I've also heard from others that they were waiting on
>> some of the major issues to settle before speaking up on the context issues.
>> I think we made enough progress in the meeting that now is probably the time
>> for that.
> Note that I disagree with several of the points from that note (not the
> need to be precise, but I like functions like Previous() much better than
> pseudovariables like P, and I think the initial ruleset needs to stay in the
> document after publication).

What I'd really like to see is a formulation that was even closer to what
people would actually used

> I missed replying to your comments in November, but see that the relevant
> sections were revised in December, so my comments would probably have been
> moot anyway.

I didn't get any reply from Patrik, so I don't know what changes he made,
whether any were in response to my document, which suggestions he
incorporated, which he didn't; and any reasoning connected with any of

>> I will add one other point from the meeting, these rules are complex
>> enough that until we get two independent implementations of the rules (that
>> agree on the results) we cannot have any confidence in them. And because
>> they are crucial to getting correct A-Labels, we need to have confidence in
>> them.
> As part of those implementations, I also would like a test set; the lack of
> a test set was a major hindrance for me when attempting to reimplement the
> Unicode Bidi algorithm.

I agree firmly.

>                Harald
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list