Re: [idn] Re: stability

["Adam M. Costello" <[e-mail]>]

Erik van der Poel <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I was referring to the RFC that has a pointer to UAX #15, i.e. RFC
> 3454 (Stringprep).  The pointer should be updated to tracking number
> 24 or higher.
>
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/tr15-24.html

I agree.  Right now there does not exist a correct implementation of
Unicode normalization anywhere.  Some implementations are wrong because
they deviate from the spec, and other implementations are wrong because
they adhere to the spec which itself is wrong (because it violates all
the fundamental properties that anything called a canonical form is
assumed to have).  It's an unfortunate situation, but the best thing to
do now is fix the spec and encourage all implementations to converge on
the fixed spec, which is what the Unicode Consortium is doing.  Our part
in this is to update our pointer, so that it points at a correct spec
rather than a wrong spec.

Simon Josefsson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I believe it would be useful to start thinking of the problem in terms
> of a transition plan from what we have today and what we would like to
> have tomorrow.  It is not clear to me exactly what we would like to
> have tomorrow, so settling that would have to be part of the plan as
> well.

It's clear to me what we ought to have tomorrow: a canonical form
(that is, a function that selects a unique representative from every
equivalence class).  The Unicode Consortium is taking care of defining
that.

Do you have any ideas for a transition to that?

AMC