I-D Action:draft-faltstrom-5892bis-02.txt

[Mark Davis ☕]

> That's what's happening in this case, right?

There are two separate issues:

   1. Whether Section G should be populated automatically.
   2. Whether draft-faltstrom-5892bis-02.txt makes the correct choice for
   Unicode 6.0.

The WG decided not to pursue #1, the longer-term issue.

The short-term issue is draft-faltstrom-5892bis-02.txt. I was asked to state
why I think it is incorrect. It is because is no compelling reason to break
stability of identifiers in IDNA for this one character. Instead, the
character U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE should be added as PVALID in
Section G.

Mark

*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 14:09, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at shinkuro.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:34:58PM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >
> > I don't follow this -- Mark is not proposing to change the algorithm.
>
> He is not exactly proposing to change the algorithm.  Instead, he's
> proposing another algorithm -- a kind of epicycle, really -- to
> populate section G in order to ensure stability when the underlying
> algorithm does not allowe that.
>
> I think the WG made a decision about how to handle these cases, and
> that decision was, "Case by case at the beginning, and maybe we'll
> automate it later."  That's what's happening in this case, right?
>
> A
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20110221/1e733fae/attachment.html>