WGLC: draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt

[Simon Josefsson]

(I'm limiting the cc list to just idna-update and apps-discuss.)

Stéphane Lancel <stelancel at gmail.com> writes:

> I am sorry because I am not really expert in PVALID issues (changes, etc.),
> but I understood that PVALID once, PVALID for ever. I realize with this
> Draft that this means at character level not at codepoint level. Or am I
> wrong?

The "PVALID once PVALID forever" invariant will not be true if this
draft is approved.  However I'm not saying that should be an absolute
axiom.  There could be cases where we want to disallow some strings that
used to be permitted because they cause significant problems (for
similar reasons some code points are disallowed today).  I would prefer
case-by-case decisions.  What I'm not seeing here is an explanation why
this code point is so problematic that we must disallow it.  The code
point doesn't even seem to be used in IDNs.

/Simon