Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-5892bis-04.txt> (The Unicode code points and IDNA - Unicode 6.0) to Proposed Standard

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Peter,

Personally, I think it would be a big mistake to spend a lot
more time on this.  It just isn't worth it.  And I continue to
object to the IESG -- or even responsible ADs -- doing
copy-editing.  We pay the highly qualified RFC Editor staff for
doing that and should let them do their jobs.  That said, if
this is worth fussing with...

--On Monday, May 23, 2011 16:26 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> The first paragraph of the Introduction contains a few
> infelicities and grammatical errors. I suggest modifying it as
> follows:
> 
>    RFC 5892 [RFC5892] specifies an algorithm that was defined
> when    the current version of The Unicode Standard was
> Unicode 5.2    [Unicode5.2], and also defines a derived
> property value based on    that algorithm.  Unicode 6.0 has
> changed the GeneralCategory of    three code points that were
> allocated in Unicode 5.2 or earlier.    This implies that the
> derived property value differs depending on    whether the
> property definitions used are from Unicode 5.2 or    Unicode
> 6.0.

Strictly speaking, IDNA2008 (including RFC 5890 and 5892) were
defined when the current version of the Unicode Standard was
5.0.  It was then verified (and would have been modified if
needed, but it wasn't) for Unicode 5.2.  The table-generating
algorithm was rerun for 5.2, producing new non-normative
reference tables.  Because of the General Category changes that
were part of Unicode 6.0, the IDNA category values for those
code points changed and rerunning the table-generating algorithm
produces different results.

     john