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]

 



Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 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.

The Unicode library used during run-time, for RFC 5891, is version 6.0
though.

> 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*.

The correct claim would then be that I use Unicode 5.2 (for tables) and
Unicode 6.0 (for run-time).

I believe this is typical of how IDNA2008 will be deployed: the IDNA2008
implementation uses pre-computed tables for one Unicode version fixed at
compile-time, and the Unicode library on the system may be more rapidly
changing and could support a later version of Unicode.

Can you point to some (normative) requirement in IDNA2008 that forbids
this?

/Simon
_______________________________________________
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]