Subject: Re: [iucg] I-D Action:draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01.txt

From: "J-F C. Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:11:32 +0100

We understood that the RFC 5892 character set was definitely stable. 
RFC 5892 defines the Internet Naming Character Set _basis_ (PVALIDs) 
for ever. It can be extended and has flexibility in it , but in our 
understanding that flexibility belongs to the Internet "outside" 
Users, not to the "inside" Internet Engineers nor to any commercial 
consortium. The purpose of IDNA2008 was to uncouple IDNs from IETF 
and Unicode evolutions.

If a solution to a problem cannot be found by Unicode and PVALIDs are 
to be removed, Unicode will not be compatible with such an "INCS" 
(actually a multi-technology and multi-use International Network 
Character Set). This, now as well as other incompatibilities and 
lacks (e.g. French and Latin majuscules) of Unicode, is to be 
addressed on the User Side where it belongs.

For the time being, the WG/IDNABis is closed. RFCs are published. 
Work is currently being carried out according to IDNA2008, which 
respected its charter in disconnecting IDNs from Unicode on 1/7/2010, 
when RFC 5892 was approved. Funding principles cannot change.

jfc

At 21:14 21/12/2010, Mark Davis â˜• wrote:
><http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-faltstrom-5892bis-01
>
>In addition to the previous comments:
>When the algorithm presented in RFC 5892 is applied to Unicode 6.0
>
>
>
>
>
>the result will be different from when it is applied to Unicode 5.2
>
>
>
>
>
>for the three codepoints discussed in this document.
>It should be something like:
>
>When the algorithm presented in RFC 5892 is applied using theÂ 
>property definitions ofÂ Unicode Standard VersionÂ 6.0, the result 
>will be different from when it is applied using the property 
>definitions ofÂ Version 5.2. There are 2,088 new characters in 
>Version 6.0 which change from UNASSIGNED to another value. In 
>addition, 3 characters defined in Unicode 5.2 have different values, 
>as described in Section 1.
>
>
>The next sentence is also untrue (as well as ungrammatical).