Hi Patrik,
Thanks for your messages. The official source of the table is described in the draft. The table is not only for TSConv, but also applied for IDN(CJK) validation by accommodating other script requirements. Detail CJK validation algorithm will be described in the next verion of TSConv before 21st Nov. Basically, unknown code point will pass CJK validation function. For a valid code point, it will never be invalid in future revision. Only new invalid code point will be added in future revision. The design ensure backward compatibility, revisioning and stability. Kenny Huang Secretariat, JET > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Patrik Faltstrom > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 9:57 AM > To: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine > Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine; James Seng/Personal; > tsenglm@-poo$$$?.$$$j.tw; Erin Chen; liana Ye; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [idn] draft about Tradition and Simplified Chinese > Conversion[version01] > > > --On 2001-11-17 20.44 -0500 Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't buy your reasoning, in either case (guarantees of UTC > or JET work > > product immutability), unless nameprep has a dependency > relationship on a > > reference to a table, rather than to the table itself, at the point at > > which the relationship was made. > > The algorithm used in nameprep for versioning is based on the > fact that UTC > have told us that they will not change the tables for assigned codepoints. > > We are _not_ looking behind the curtains or evaluate whether we > belive that > statement is true or not. We just wanted that statement. > > The same way, the wg need a statement from JET. > > The "trust" part is not what I am talking about. That is a problem of IAB > (not some random individual) as representative for external contacts. > > If we asked for "trust", then we were to start "looking under the covers" > which you implied we did for JET because of this question from James. > > We have not done so with UTC and we are not doing it with JET. > > paf >
