Unicode 5.2 -> 6.0

Kenneth Whistler kenw at sybase.com
Fri Oct 15 00:08:56 CEST 2010

Nico said:

> To restate my other reply more concisely:
> a) the UC allows for grandfathering in the case of U+19CA;
> b) I can't find any way to render U+19CA;

Whether *you* can't find a way to render U+19CA is
beside the point. There are fonts available
in the world which contain a displayable glyph for U+19CA.
I know that for a fact, because we used one such font to
generate the code charts for Unicode 6.0, and other people
used that font or similar fonts to create the proposals
for it in the first place.

Furthermore, the main community which is concerned with
the New Tai Lue script is in a very remote prefecture
in Yunnan Province in China:


It would be very difficult to find out what that community
may *already* be doing with the New Tai Lue encoding,
for IDNs or anything else. Certainly I wouldn't bet on
no one among the nearly a million residents from  being
able to render U+19CA.
> c) if we can't find a way to render U+19CA then we should assume U+19CA
>    is not used in domainname labels anywhere and adopt the otherwise
>    backward compatibility breaking PVALID->DISALLOWED change.

I think that logic is just faulty.

> d) if we can find a way to render U+19CA then we need more information
>    but should default to grandfathering U+19CA, per-(a).

But I agree with the last conclusion there.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list