From: Erik van der Poel (erik@vanderpoel.org)
Date: Fri Mar 11 2005 - 17:12:14 CST
I agree, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was trying to
prevent Unicode from fixing its properties. I did not mean to imply that.
The IETF *is* concerned about the stability of the normalization table
since that *could* be dangerous in the DNS case. I heard that Unicode
and IETF have some kind of agreement about normalization table
stability, but I can't seem to find it via Google right now. I did find
the following:
http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3718.txt
Unicode does publish the changes in the normalizations, so the IETF can
decide whether or not to incorporate them in their specs:
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NormalizationCorrections.txt
Erik
Markus Scherer wrote:
> So what you need is an IDN-specific inclusion list that you could
> initially base on Unicode properties, minus confusables or whatever
> criteria you want to use, and then this list is kept stable in an
> IDN-specific standard. No need to prevent Unicode from fixing its
> properties.
>
> markus
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:23:59 -0800, Erik van der Poel
> <erik@vanderpoel.org> wrote:
>
>>There is some evidence that the IDN Working Group had a concern that the
>>General Category Value in the UCD was not very stable, and that it might
>>not be a good idea to base an Internet standard on something like that.
>>...
>>As it turns out, Unicode includes U+16C1, a Runic Letter that looks like
>>the vertical bar (|). This would argue that IDNs should not just be
>>limited to Unicode's Letter, Number and Mark categories. They should
>>also disallow certain Unicode blocks, such as the Runic block, *for
>>now*. ...
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 11 2005 - 17:12:56 CST