Re: [Lucid] lucid mailing list up

JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> Tue, 17 February 2015 21:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
X-Original-To: lucid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lucid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B83741A8A6B for <lucid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:45:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.631
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.631 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no
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 V8I9q5ek8coX for <lucid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:45:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host.presenceweb.org (host.presenceweb.org [67.222.106.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F4411A0113 for <lucid@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:45:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 14.218.130.77.rev.sfr.net ([77.130.218.14]:62280 helo=GHM-SAM.dot.dj) by host.presenceweb.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <jefsey@jefsey.com>) id 1YNpxq-0002uH-EI; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:45:54 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 22:45:58 +0100
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>, lucid@ietf.org
From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <5C4571A3-9846-482B-A787-7424E4205D4A@viagenie.ca>
References: <5C4571A3-9846-482B-A787-7424E4205D4A@viagenie.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.presenceweb.org
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.presenceweb.org: authenticated_id: intl+dot.dj/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lucid/XPRoeCXm9fs-YGsiGaKinbHlF9w>
Subject: Re: [Lucid] lucid mailing list up
X-BeenThere: lucid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Locale-free UniCode Identifiers \(LUCID\)" <lucid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lucid>, <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lucid/>
List-Post: <mailto:lucid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lucid>, <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:45:59 -0000
X-Message-ID:
Message-ID: <20150217214601.4837.39778.ARCHIVE@ietfa.amsl.com>

At 16:19 16/02/2015, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>the lucid mailing list is up. Here is the description:
>The IAB has published a statement  about issues with the use of 
>certain types of Unicode code points in  the IDNA protocol. The IAB 
>expects the IETF to investigate ways to address this problem. This 
>mailing list is the place to discuss this issue.
>
>The intent is also to prepare the BOF scheduled for IETF Dallas.

Dear Marc,

I have announced a CLASS "FL" (Free/Libre) effort to explore, develop 
and experiment a Unicode compatible, non-Unicode based general 
"machine/man" WHISIWIM (what I see is what it memorizes) sollution.

The questions I have therefore, to know if this list can benefit or 
not of my contribution, are:

- to know if this mailing list and the targeted BOF will want to 
discuss this kind of community effort or not?

- is there an authoritative Unicode document which explicitly 
documents the entirety of the lucid issue, i.e. an exhaustive table of
   --- all the Unicode known characters descriptions (in English, 
French and other languages),
   --- their code point,
   --- if they are included in ISO 10646.

The response to these two questions should avoid further misunderstandings.
Thank you.

jfc
.