On 5/29/11 1:29 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
John C Klensin<john-ietf@xxxxxxx> writes:
--On Sunday, May 29, 2011 08:58 +0200 Simon Josefsson
<simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
in a Unicode 6.0 environment, evaluate U+19DA as PVALID and
therefore not raise that error, then it is not "compliant"
with RFC 5892, irrelevant of the "Updates" status of the
present document.
I don't see how.
My code uses the tables from RFC 5892 which were generated in
an Unicode 5.2 environment.
Then you are, in my terminology, implementing RFC 5892 in a "Unicode 5.2
environment". Your implementation is carrying the "5.2 environment" with
it. But I now think I see the source of the misunderstanding:
You could reasonably say that your implementation is conformant
but current only to Unicode 5.2. If you are willing to say
that, I guess you don't need to change anything.
I claim my implementation is compliant to all requirements in RFC 5890,
RFC 5891, RFC 5892 and RFC 5893.
There's the problem. You can't claim that your implementation is
compliant with the above RFCs without also mentioning the version of
Unicode you are using, precisely because the RFCs are now Unicode
version independent. Your implementation that evaluates U+19DA as PVALID
is complaint with the RFCs *as applied to Unicode version 5.2*. Your
implementation that evaluates U+19DA as PVALID is *not* complaint with
the RFCs *as applied to Unicode version 6.0*.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf