Unicode 5.2 -> 6.0
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Thu Oct 14 23:34:32 CEST 2010
As far as an implementation is concerned, UNASSIGNED == DISALLOWED. (as you
note)
Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 14:20, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 02:01:39PM -0700, Mark Davis ? wrote:
> >
> > *1) DISALLOWED => PVALID*
> > *
> > *
> >
> > *U+0CF1 KANNADA SIGN JIHVAMULIYA*
> > *U+0CF2 KANNADA SIGN UPADHMANIYA*
> >
> >
> > These don't cause any problem. With each new version of Unicode, this
> > happens with thousands of characters; all the new ones. Having IDNA2008
> just
> > follow Unicode is the right thing to do.
>
> Is that right? The new ones should all be moving from UNASSIGNED into
> PVALID, shouldn't they? Without thinking about it for very long, it
> seems right to me that it's less of a big deal to move from DISALLOWED
> to PVALID, because something that used to be valid doesn't thereby
> become invalid. But note that all the deployed software with the old
> DISALLOWED rule simply won't allow lookups of them. (Of course, the
> way RFC 5891 is written, they won't look up UNASSIGNED code points
> either, so this test collapses, I guess.)
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20101014/680a284d/attachment.html>
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list