[Json] Json and U+08A1 and related cases (was: Re: Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-json-i-json-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT))

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Wed Jan 21 22:31:29 CET 2015

On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:33:12PM -0500, cowan at ccil.org wrote:
> John C Klensin scripsit:
> > But, while U+08A1 is abstract-character-identical and even
> > plausible-name-identical to U+0628 U+0654, it does _not_
> > decompose into the latter.  Instead, NFD(U+08A1) = NFC(U+08A1) =
> > U+08A1.  NFC (U+0628 U+0654) is U+0628 U+0654 as one would
> > expect from the stability rules; from that perspective, it is
> > the failure of U+08A1 to have a (non-identity) decomposition
> > that is the issue.
> If U+08A1 had such a decomposition, it would violate Unicode's
> no-new-NFC rule.  What it violates is the (false) assumption that
> base1 + combining is never confusable with a canonically
> non-equivalent base2.  Even outside Arabic there are already
> such cases:
> [...]

Should we treat all of these as confusables?


More information about the Idna-update mailing list