simon at josefsson.org
Mon Feb 21 22:34:58 CET 2011
Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se> writes:
> On 21 feb 2011, at 21.58, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I didn't understand John's argument that we have an incompatibility
>> regardless of what we do
> Either we have stability in the algorithm (as now proposed) or we have
> stability in the table which is the result of the calculation of the
> IDNA2008 is defined as being an _algorithm_ that should be stable, so
> an application can apply it regardless of what version of Unicode we
> talk about.
> Because the algorithm is based on property values that now changes for
> three codepoints, the result of the calculation is not stable.
> The alternative would be to change the algorithm, and that would make
> the codepoints not change, but the algorithm changes.
> IDNA2003 was a table based solution.
> IDNA2008 is an algorithm based solution.
I don't follow this -- Mark is not proposing to change the algorithm.
If I understand him, he proposes to add U+19DA to section G in order to
make the IDNA2008 algorithm produce stable results independent of
Again, what practical incompatibility is there in following Mark's
proposal? An illustration would go a long way to convince me here, as I
believe Mark has illustrated that by _not_ adding another exception to
the list of exceptions, we will create two incompatible IDNA2008
algorithms: IDNA2008 with Unicode 5.2/6.0 vs IDNA2008-with-RFC5892bis
with Unicode 6.0.
More information about the Idna-update