Re: Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> (The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



For all those people just dying to know about this character (U+19DA),
the latest Unicode code chart listing it is here
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1980.pdf
and the name of the character is NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Simon Josefsson <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group
>> WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
>> - 'The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0'
>>   <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
> Dear IESG,
> Is the intention that this document will update RFC 5892 or not?
> The document does not contain a "Updates:" header but the draft name
> suggests otherwise to me, hence my question.
>
> If the document does not update RFC 5892 (or some other document), I
> support publishing this document because it will not affect my
> implementation of RFC 5892.
>
> If the document updates RFC 5892, in order to remain compliant with the
> RFCs I would have to modify my implementation and make a backwards
> incompatible change.  Today U+19DA converts to xn--pkf.  With this
> document, I would have to raise an error for that input instead.  I
> believe a case-by-case evaluation for each modified code-point is a good
> way to determine whether or not to add an exception in the IDNA tables.
> I haven't seen any discussion why U+19DA is so harmful that it has to be
> disallowed.  On the contrary, everyone appears to agree that the code
> point is not widely used and the implications of continue permitting it
> are minor.  Thus I would support publication of the document after
> adding U+19DA to table BackwardCompatible (G) as PVALID.
>
> I do realize that I may be in the rough part of the consensus here,
> which happens, but I want to provide my feedback for the record and
> allow the decision process to proceed.  At least I will be able to shift
> blame to someone else if/when my users gets confused by this. :-)
>
> /Simon
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]