Re: [Idna-update] [I18nrp] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05.txt> (IDNA2008 and Unicode 11.0.0) to Informational RFC

["Asmus Freytag (c)" <[e-mail]>]

On 12/6/2018 10:16 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2018, at 7:12, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> But I still believe that, with appropriate qualification, Larry is still correct.
> I think we dive into the details here.
>
> 1. I think the ability (for example) copy and paste, respond to, click on, save in bookmarks etc is the most important global requirement
>
> 2. The ability to type, to enter via a keyboard, read on a bus, etc is secondary and have localization issues so very much different than (1)

A longer reply to this in my prev. note, but I emphatically disagree.

If you are dealing with a foreign language / script to you, then you 
will be reduced to selecting or perhaps copying; but for your own 
language and script (and for too many of the modern scripts) there are 
many possible sequences that so deeply violate the reader's expectation 
(or the systems' expectations) that they can effectively not be 
understood (read and remembered) by the users or displayed or processed 
by the system (or not reliably so across systems).

For many scripts, allowing too much will make labels every bit as 
unusable as allowing too little.

>
> My point was that because of this, I think retypable is very very very much different than other, global, requirements, and the latter should not (I think) muddy the waters of the first requirement I list above.

Your item (1) addresses much more the level of implementation of the 
user presentation of IDNs, and less what should be allowed in IDN 
labels. Apples and oranges, it seems to me.

Item 1 is what the UASG should be concerned with, Item 2 is what IDNA 
should be concerned with (at the guidance level).

A./