[Gen-art] LC review: draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt

Andrew Sullivan ajs at shinkuro.com
Mon Oct 5 22:21:26 CEST 2009

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 01:14:36PM -0700, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

> Then I think the editor needs to address that more explicitly,
> particularly at the point in Section 2 that says what bidi classes
> are allowed in labels, so as not to lead to exactly the kind
> of misreading and confusion that Joel Halpern has indicated.

I think this would be a good idea too.  One sentence would be enough.
Indeed, when I saw Joel Halpern's comment, I went to the draft to
look, because I thought there _was_ such a sentence there.  But there

> No character will be added to Bidi_Class=Common_Separator
> in the future unless it is another punctuation analog (and
> mostly likely even a compatibility equivalent to) a FULL STOP,
> I can't even conceive of the circumstances under which the IETF
> would decide it would be a good idea to add a newly encoded
> one of those into the allowed set of characters for IDNs
> in the future.

I agree with both of those remarks, which is why I don't feel too
strongly about this, but it does seem to me that for the same
principled reasons we thought these documents had to be separated, it
would be in principle cleaner if all the non-bidi restrictions were
only in the tables document.


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list