Re: [Idna-update] Genart telechat review of draft-faltstrom-unicode11-08

[Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]>]

Hello Asmus,

On 2019/03/20 01:24, Asmus Freytag (c) wrote:
> On 3/19/2019 3:19 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> In the 6.0.0 timeframe, there were both more actual changes (3), and
>> there was one change where we moved from PVALID to DISALLOWED, which I
>> personally think is the tougher one (see
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6452#section-1.3). And looking at the
>> code chart athttps://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1980.pdf, one may even
>> reasonably argue that keeping U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM DIGIT ONE would
>> have been the better choice, because when one compares U+19B1 NEW TAI
>> LUE VOWEL SIGN AA and U+19D1 NEW TAI LUE DIGIT ONE and finds them having
>> (at least on first approximation) the same glyph shape, one can easily
>> guess that U+19DA NEW TAI LUE THAM_DIGIT_  ONE is used (this is only a
>> quick conjection which would have to be confirmed) exactly in situations
>> where the distinction between letters and digits is important, of which
>> we know domain names are a good example.
> 
> Here's a telling example of how a formal problem can be practically 
> irrelevant:
> 
> I looked up New Tai Lue on Omniglot:
> 
> "The new script is used exclusively in Jinghong, so could be called the
>    New Jinghong Tai Lue script, and is used for shop and street signs.
> *Fe**w people can read it*. "   (Emphasis mine).
> 
> If you read the full text you get the impression that the whole script
> represents a failed state-imposed "simplification". Unicode still needs
> to encode it, so that archival texts from the period between 1950 and 1980
> can be encoded, but it's surely of no practical relevance for domain names.

Interestingly enough, their page (at 
https://omniglot.com/writing/tailue.htm) shows the U+19DA NEW TAI LUE 
_THAM_ DIGIT ONE glyph rather than the U+19D1 NEW TAI LUE DIGIT ONE 
glyph in the Numerals section.

Regards,   Martin.