Pete Resnick <presn...@qualcomm.com> writes: > On 5/29/11 1:29 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote: >> John C Klensin<john-i...@jck.com> writes: >> >> >>> --On Sunday, May 29, 2011 08:58 +0200 Simon Josefsson >>> <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> in a Unicode 6.0 environment, evaluate U+19DA as PVALID and >>>>> therefore not raise that error, then it is not "compliant" >>>>> with RFC 5892, irrelevant of the "Updates" status of the >>>>> present document. >>>>> >>>> I don't see how. >>>> >>>> My code uses the tables from RFC 5892 which were generated in >>>> an Unicode 5.2 environment. > > Then you are, in my terminology, implementing RFC 5892 in a "Unicode > 5.2 environment". Your implementation is carrying the "5.2 > environment" with it.
The Unicode library used during run-time, for RFC 5891, is version 6.0 though. > But I now think I see the source of the misunderstanding: > >>> You could reasonably say that your implementation is conformant >>> but current only to Unicode 5.2. If you are willing to say >>> that, I guess you don't need to change anything. >>> >> I claim my implementation is compliant to all requirements in RFC 5890, >> RFC 5891, RFC 5892 and RFC 5893. > > There's the problem. You can't claim that your implementation is > compliant with the above RFCs without also mentioning the version of > Unicode you are using, precisely because the RFCs are now Unicode > version independent. Your implementation that evaluates U+19DA as > PVALID is complaint with the RFCs *as applied to Unicode version > 5.2*. Your implementation that evaluates U+19DA as PVALID is *not* > complaint with the RFCs *as applied to Unicode version 6.0*. The correct claim would then be that I use Unicode 5.2 (for tables) and Unicode 6.0 (for run-time). I believe this is typical of how IDNA2008 will be deployed: the IDNA2008 implementation uses pre-computed tables for one Unicode version fixed at compile-time, and the Unicode library on the system may be more rapidly changing and could support a later version of Unicode. Can you point to some (normative) requirement in IDNA2008 that forbids this? /Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
