Unicode 5.2 -> 6.0
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Fri Oct 15 00:07:21 CEST 2010
The thought of either trying to determine (a) what all the registries in the
world have, or (b) what all the fonts on everyone's machines can do, I find
somewhat daunting. There is another kicker. If software gets released based
on 5.2, it could have a multiyear lifespan. Even if you could do (a) or (b)
now, that doesn't mean that you can tell what will happen in the future...
The fundamental issue is that the effort in researching whether or not it is
'safe' to have the instability *completely* swamps the effort of just
updating clause G. Everyone then knows that it is stable, and nobody has to
worry about it.
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 14:47, Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at oracle.com
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 02:44:17PM -0700, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> > > b) I can't find any way to render U+19CA;
> > That just means you can't find a font for it. That doesn't mean that
> > * has one.
> That's what point (c) was about: asking that we look for one. (Why
> could you not quote that? What's the point of picking the very nit that
> I address in the following sentence?)
> We're much more likely to be able to determine that no font can render
> U+19CA than that no domainname label uses that codepoint.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update