FW: Your statement on Identifiers and Unicode 7.0.0

Jefsey jefsey at jefsey.com
Thu Feb 5 13:06:01 CET 2015

At 21:33 04/02/2015, John C Klensin wrote:
>As to "a non-confusagle Unigraph compatible table", I look
>forward to seeing a serious and detailed proposal.  Many of us
>believe the notion is impossible for reasons that have at least
>as much to do with human perception as with writing systems.

Dear John,
The target is not a proposal but a CLASS "FL" operational algorithm 
based upon a table, to be tested and reported as per ICP-3.
We are ***not*** considering a writing system, but a printed sign 
system for a single purpose: ID/naming non confusability.

There are five layers involved.
- an unchanged DNS use, operated in CLASS "FL" (Free/Libre) implying 
any DBMS being used by nameservers.
- the list of accepted character signs.
- the non-confusable visualization of these characters.
- the list of corresponding UNIGRAPH code points
- a fringe to fringe punnycoding/decoding for the CLASS "FL" DNSLIB root zone.

Please explain where is a possible impossibility.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list