For all those people just dying to know about this character (U+19DA), the latest Unicode code chart listing it is here http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1980.pdf and the name of the character is NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE.
Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 7:19 AM, Simon Josefsson <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: > The IESG <iesg-secret...@ietf.org> writes: > >> The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working Group >> WG (appsawg) to consider the following document: >> - 'The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0' >> <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > Dear IESG, > Is the intention that this document will update RFC 5892 or not? > The document does not contain a "Updates:" header but the draft name > suggests otherwise to me, hence my question. > > If the document does not update RFC 5892 (or some other document), I > support publishing this document because it will not affect my > implementation of RFC 5892. > > If the document updates RFC 5892, in order to remain compliant with the > RFCs I would have to modify my implementation and make a backwards > incompatible change. Today U+19DA converts to xn--pkf. With this > document, I would have to raise an error for that input instead. I > believe a case-by-case evaluation for each modified code-point is a good > way to determine whether or not to add an exception in the IDNA tables. > I haven't seen any discussion why U+19DA is so harmful that it has to be > disallowed. On the contrary, everyone appears to agree that the code > point is not widely used and the implications of continue permitting it > are minor. Thus I would support publication of the document after > adding U+19DA to table BackwardCompatible (G) as PVALID. > > I do realize that I may be in the rough part of the consensus here, > which happens, but I want to provide my feedback for the record and > allow the decision process to proceed. At least I will be able to shift > blame to someone else if/when my users gets confused by this. :-) > > /Simon > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
