Unicode 5.2 -> 6.0

[Pete Resnick]

On 10/14/10 4:01 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> The stability of domain names is far more important -- that once a 
> domain name is valid, that it remain so.

So I wish to disagree with the above statement and therefore *disagree* 
with the suggestion that we adopt (c) adding U+19DA to G. I am in favor 
of (a).

We made a design decision in IDNA2008 that domain names that contained 
other than some small set of letters, digits, and a small set of 
punctuation were more trouble than they were worth. We made it clear to 
folks that acceptable domain names should only contain certain classes 
of characters. What I take Unicode 6.0 to be saying is, "There was an 
error in 5.2: A character that we all agree is *not* a decimal digit was 
incorrectly labeled as one." If some wise guy somewhere tried to create 
a domain label with what is demonstrably *not* a decimal digit because 
there was an error in the standard, that wise guy gets what he deserves. 
It will not decrease the stability of the Internet to invalidate domain 
names that happened to contain this character.

The day that LATIN SMALL LETTER I changes class, I'll be happy to put 
something in category G. This is not that day.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102