IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idna-update] Expiration impending: <draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-01.txt>

Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> Thu, 08 March 2018 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
X-Original-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB9F6127775 for <idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:47:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=eJgS0eKZ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=yitter.info header.b=nqJAzsTS
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j5tOAFbrKtA4 for <idna-update@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx4.yitter.info (mx4.yitter.info [159.203.56.111]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BFC1127522 for <idna-update@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:47:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx4.yitter.info (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5FABE780 for <idna-update@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:47:09 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1520531229; bh=HGL6LnAZIPbQBnW4OuMP71W2vyHaTm+MK6UXalaspYU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=eJgS0eKZNXxeZIQwmlN8FT7znQyQLBdYpXUYNJmEkNxUkbRq2HBfaSa8wiHFnlh5A cPT0aXLrUMH7FsjBBcwjOPrwTxktvmlK57T0OGiA9VjV5d9L4yTzZutSZgpHvw7piF AvpFzErt7W31diITw5vhXsj5WSohsHMSheLafAIw=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crankycanuck.ca
Received: from mx4.yitter.info ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx4.yitter.info [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LpRe2ZODVi_y for <idna-update@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:47:07 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:47:04 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yitter.info; s=default; t=1520531227; bh=HGL6LnAZIPbQBnW4OuMP71W2vyHaTm+MK6UXalaspYU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=nqJAzsTSZpmQcZjg/cLRD4IuAjRpULOmnOLqj+EBseoFgfolO4mP1d2zjD4GJjTl5 37JnB1mScgCsXMz3uzDH7kJ48FFhweIH8KY62SF0GQYqL8vFtGTnihBxY5EhI7R6eP xtDgNtz//LJnJYw5IiU04f+9kkrmbSBv/dyHlOsQ=
From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
To: idna-update@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180308174703.q3bffw7anrvjwzym@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <C4FBCF12821031786F472AA2@PSB>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <C4FBCF12821031786F472AA2@PSB>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idna-update/tUMJmqqvfIlH84VY7HA3OVyZma0>
Subject: Re: [Idna-update] Expiration impending: <draft-klensin-idna-rfc5891bis-01.txt>
X-BeenThere: idna-update@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Internationalized Domain Names in Applications \(IDNA\) implementation and update discussions" <idna-update.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idna-update/>
List-Post: <mailto:idna-update@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>, <mailto:idna-update-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 17:47:42 -0000

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 12:11:48PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote:
> If that were the rule and someone really, really, wanted a
> grapheme that could only be formed in Unicode with a combining
> sequence, it would be up to them to convince the Unicode
> Consortium that their favorite character (grapheme) needed to be
> added to Unicode as a single code point.   However hard that
> might be, it would not be our problem.

I thought the argument at the time was not just that it was safe, but
that some characters (in conceptual sense that Unicode uses it) were
necessarily made of combining characters.  This was also I guess the
reason that the two joiners ended up in under context rules, I think,
yes?

Moreover, there was the principle that we didn't want to make
restrictions low in the tree even if we thought they were mostly a bad
idea near the top (this was literally the reasoning for including
hieroglyphs as I recall).

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs@anvilwalrusden.com

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email