On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote: > UTS46 is, among > other things, the mapping layer which IDNA2008 says should be > implemented, Not is not. Many people in this thread have voiced their opposition to UTS46 and the desire to move away from it entirely. > Fixing on IDNA2003 would permanently block all those scripts which have > been added to Unicode since 3.2 (is that right?) No that is wrong and that's not how we implement IDNA2003 in Gecko. > If you decide to "fix" that, then you aren't using IDNA2003 any > more, and you are "changing the rules" in a way to which you have > indicated opposition - and worse, in a non-standard way. It's not worse if it's fully backwards compatible and mostly interoperable across all major clients. At that point the standard is just wrong. > It has always been my understanding, and I've had confirmation certainly > from the Germans, that the backwardly-incompatible changes in IDNA2008 > relating to the four exception chars - Greek sigma, Eszett, ZWJ and ZWNJ > - are endorsed by the registries of the languages most affected. In > other words, as people closest to the problem, they still think changing > is less bad than sticking with IDNA2003. That should count for a lot. If that was all that had changed, I might be more optimistic. I refer you to my earlier email about simple things as lowercasing. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 11:17:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC