[Gen-art] LC review: draft-ietf-idnabis-bidi-06.txt
vint at google.com
Mon Oct 5 22:25:13 CEST 2009
yes tell him I have an upper bound of 6 pm.
On Oct 5, 2009, at 4:14 PM, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Erik said:
>> Yes, this change occurred between bidi draft versions 3 and 4, and is
>> due to Mati's proposal. I believe he came up with that suggestion
>> based purely on the bidi criteria (grouping, uniqueness), and not
>> based on what was allowed/disallowed in the Table draft.
> 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 it's OK to leave CS in there, even if the Table spec excludes
>> all of them in the current version of Unicode. Future versions of
>> Unicode might introduce new CS characters that we want to allow in
>> IDNs, though that seems unlikely.
> Exceedingly unlikely. Astronomically unlikely. There is a
> reason why bc=CS is actually Bidi_Class=Common_Separator,
> as in characters that *separate* numeric parts and other
> label-like things.
> 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,
> COMMA, SLASH, COLON, or a NO-BREAK SPACE.
> 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.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update