Re: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion

> we need to allow FFF0-FFFD, no matter how stupid
they are.

No more so than many others ;-)

http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=[\ufff0-\ufffd]

On 10/31/07, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Duerst
> > Sent: Saturday, 2007 October 13 20:22
> > To: Henry S. Thompson; public-i18n-core@w3.org
> > Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org; public-iri@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Proposed resolution of HRRI/IRI discussion
>
> > I just have submitted draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt, which is available
> > e.g. at
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-duerst-iri-bis-01.txt.
> >
> > I created a whole new section for "Legacy Extended IRIs", Section 7.
> > I adopted your name, which is fine with me, and much of your text.
> > However, I reorganized the material a bit, creating a section
> > that deals strictly with the syntax definition (7.1), a short
> > section on conversion (7.2), and rather long section discussing each
> > of the character groups that are allowed in Legacy Extended IRIs,
> > but not in IRIs, including the problems these characters may create.
> > (I just noticed that the bullet points for that list are missing,
> > I'll fix that the next time round).
> >
> > I'd appreciate any and all comments, from the XML Core WG and
> > otherwise, on this new section and otherwise. Please note that
> > the more comments we get, the sooner we can be sure that the
> > updates we did are about right.
>
> Martin,
>
> Richard Tobin has reviewed the LEIRI section of your draft
> and makes the following comment for the XML Core WG.  We'd
> be interested in your reply.
>
> paul
>
> ------
>
> I have compared Martin's text with our earlier discussions,
> and it seems to match with one exception:  he excludes all
> of FFF0-FFFF, instead of just FFFE and FFFF.  He has a note
> "U+FFF0-FFFF: TODO:  Check, give these a name, and explain".
>
> I'm not sure what the issue is with these characters, but
> to achieve our aim of not making a normative change to
> XML (etc), we need to allow FFF0-FFFD, no matter how stupid
> they are.
>
> If we resolve this point, I think we could abandon our own
> efforts and refer to LEIRIs in our specs.
>
> -- Richard
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Mark