Subject: Re: [iucg] Unicode 5.2 -> 6.0

From: JFC Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 22:32:32 +0200

At 17:37 15/10/2010, John C Klensin wrote:
>We never said it explicitly, but perhaps one of our criteria
>should be that we are not obligated to keep labels that violate
>the principles of the standard stable when it is discovered that
>the violations are based on simple classification mistakes.

John,

People are not interested in Unicode internal issues. They need to 
use characters in an orthotypographic manner. Since the IETF decided 
to use Unicode, they use Unicode code points. If Unicode changes its 
code points, it is up to the registry and to the user interface 
(ML-DNS in my own work) to take care. The solution that will most 
probably be adopted, like in the case of Latin/French majuscules) 
will first be a punyplus algorithm adaptation. Should Unicode remain 
"unstable" (Michel Suignard speaks of 100 candidate characters) it 
will then become necessary (as a part of the RFC 5895 legacy) to 
adopt an Internet oriented Unicode encapsulation that will most 
probably attempt to address other issues, such as homographs possibly 
in part along the Unicode proposed solutions as advised by Mark Davis.

IMHO, at this stage this mailing list should be closed and replaced 
by an IAB managed list in order to advise its strategic 
considerations as per its IDNA considerations and Olaf Kolkman's 
strategic proposition. IDNA2008 has separated the DNS and Internet 
from the presentation layer issues, which is wise since the Internet 
has no documented presentation layer. Who is it that shall manage the 
presentation layer was one of the questions of my appeal. IESG and 
IAB have clearly acknowledged this. The IAB decided to prematurely 
publish (before responding to my appeal)  the IDNA2008 document set 
without the disclaimer they had coined for me. This shown that it 
retained the presentation and other subsidiarity and precautionary 
issues, as induced by IDNA2008, out of the IDNA2008 scope and 
seemingly out of the direct scope of the IETF, for the time being. On 
the other hand, they have engaged in a strategic planning effort 
wherein such matters are to be discussed in a bundled way.

jfc