I also favor publication of the document with a minimum of further fuss.
[For a somewhat different reason. I do believe that
draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt
makes an incorrect choice, breaking compatibility when that isn't at all
necessary. However, I don't think that any further discussion will
Looking at character frequencies in web documents, the frequency of U+0673
cannot be separated from noise. Haven't yet looked at URLs.
Mark
2009/6/1 Shawn Steele shawn.ste...@microsoft.com
I'm curious how this impacts IDNA2003 compatibility and particularly the
proposed IDNA2008 mappings. I
Let me see if I can clarify the situation.
Once a version of Unicode is issued, the consortium makes no retroactive
changes. Thus if someone claims and correctly implements conformance to
Unicode Version X, their implementation will remain conformant to that
version forever.
The corrigenda
One must not confuse ICU and CLDR:
- CLDR is a project of the Unicode Consortium.
- ICU is an open-source project, sponsored by IBM, that *uses* CLDR data.
In both cases, however, data and code is freely available, with attribution.
Mark
(You know this, Doug, just pointing out for others.)
I want to also bring the UTR #36 Security Considerations for the
Implementation of Unicode and Related Technology. Although still draft, we
will be fleshing it out over time. Feedback is welcome.
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/
Mark
- Original Message -
From: James Seng [EMAIL
not be aware is
that this work has been carried out as an informal IETF/W3C/Unicode
collaboration. For example:
- Addison Phillips (co-author) is the Chair of the W3C I18N WG
- Mark Davis (co-author) is the President of the Unicode Consortium
- Martin Duerst, one of the participants in the debate
3066) that go beyond the patterns 'll(-CC) and lll(-CC). If we stick
with RFC 3066, we will have no way of writing forward-compatible
processors that will be able to do very useful matching.
I want to reinforce what Peter has said. In RFC 3066 we have already
registered language tags like
tags you will
encounter.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 06:44
Subject: Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, sp
ecifications,stability
Rather, the rule is simply that a country code, if present,
always appears as a two letter second subtag. The new draft changes this
rule,
so applications that pay attention to coutnry codes in language tags have
to
change and the new algorithm for finding the country code is trickier.
Your
AFAIK the Unicode consortium plans a registry of locales, stuff
like de-DE etc. I hope that your ideas are compatible with
whatever they do (I've no idea, sorry)
The Unicode consortium has already a registry of locales, at
www.unicode.org/cldr/ For the language part of the locale IDs*, we are
There is a fundamental misunderstanding on two points.
1. Of course countries go in and out of existence, and change their borders;
nobody disputes that. That is not the stability problem in question; it is
where the meaning of tags changes so drastically as to refer to a completely
different
So, I think Bruce has identified a valid issue here. I personally would
not have characterized it as greatly exacerbating, though, as the issue
was present in RFC 3066: private-use tags did not need to be registered
in RFC 3066, so there was no way in implementation could be written with
The ABNF is an expression of the grammar that
describes the set of all valid tags.
No, this is simply incorrect. You cannot expect that any implementation that
simply does the ABNF is conformant. There are a great many constraints on
the tags that are not in the ABNF grammar, that are clearly
-
From: Bruce Lilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 09:16
Subject: Re: New Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
Date: 2004-12-11 00:52
From: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC
Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP
Date: 2004-12-12 13:00
From: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your claim that the RFC 3066 ABNF itself has a restriction in length is
also
clearly false. I will quote
al Message -
From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Mark Davis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Mark Crispin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Keith Moore"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTEC
characters, in email addresses to better serve the needs of the
multi-national Internet community...
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
- Original Message -
From: Marc Blanchet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mark Crispin
[EMAIL
As for the protocol, I could have sworn that users do not type protocol data
units directly, or at least that they haven't for roughly 25 years. (Another
jibe, citing the fact that utf-8 is, itself, a modification to raw unicode
is probably worth repeating, here.)
While it doesn't really
I'm curious: why do you think that everyone would be satisfied with Latin
characters only, and no non-Latin characters?
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
- Original Message -
From: Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Keith Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
-developed countries to
bring computers to masses of people that will even less familiarity with Latin
letters.
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
- Original Message -
From: Mark Crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Keith Moore
Unicode is not usable in international context.
...
It would not be worth replying to these threadworn and repeated
assertions by Mr. Ohta, except that some members of this list may not
be that familiar with Unicode. Clearly Unicode is being used
successfully in a huge variety of products in
21 matches
Mail list logo
