phoffman at imc.org
Wed Dec 22 17:17:35 CET 2010
At 12:14 PM -0800 12/21/10, Mark Davis ? wrote:
>In addition to the previous comments:
>When the algorithm presented in RFC 5892 is applied to Unicode 6.0
>the result will be different from when it is applied to Unicode 5.2
>for the three codepoints discussed in this document.
>It should be something like:
>When the algorithm presented in RFC 5892 is applied using the property definitions of Unicode Standard Version 6.0, the result will be different from when it is applied using the property definitions of Version 5.2. There are 2,088 new characters in Version 6.0 which change from UNASSIGNED to another value. In addition, 3 characters defined in Unicode 5.2 have different values, as described in Section 1.
I like the addition of "property definitions" to make the existing sentence more precise. I do not like the implication of "UTC added thousands of characters, so changing a few is no big deal".
>The next sentence is also untrue (as well as ungrammatical).
>is though that the changes are minor, and that it is important IDNA
>standard is aligned with the Unicode Standard.
The IETF has not had a consensus call on this document, so it is premature to say that the statement is untrue.
>The IETF had two choices for each of the 3 characters: add it to section G or let the value change. Both of these choices are "aligned with the Unicode Standard", because the use of section G to preserve stability is in alignment with the Unicode Standard. What would be more accurate would be something like:
>IETF consensus is though that the characters are minor, and strict backwards compatibility of IDNA2008 is not important for minor characters.
That could also be IETF consensus; we don't know yet.
More information about the Idna-update