[precis] the Exceptions category
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 08 May 2012 02:50 UTC
Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Original-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: precis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA16121F84D2 for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 19:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.547
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7blc41M3KVsj for <precis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2012 19:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F1DC21F84AE for <precis@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 19:50:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.9] (unknown [216.17.175.160]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A6BBB40058 for <precis@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2012 21:06:12 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <4FA88A10.2030903@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 20:50:56 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "precis@ietf.org" <precis@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [precis] the Exceptions category
X-BeenThere: precis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <precis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/precis>
List-Post: <mailto:precis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis>, <mailto:precis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 02:50:58 -0000
RFC 5892 defines a category called Exceptions, which lists codepoints whose assignment differs from what the assignment would have been based solely on the core property value. For example, while working on the PRECIS codepoint table I just found U+0F0B (TIBETAN MARK INTERSYLLABIC TSHEG), which has a core property value of Po ("Punctuation, other") and which thus would have been DISALLOWED in IDNA2008 if it had not been explicitly placed in the Exceptions category. Unfortunately, the decisions of the IDNA2008 team with regard to these exceptions are not documented in RFC 5892 or elsewhere (AFAIK), so it's not easy to understand whether it would be best for PRECIS to follow IDNA2008 here or instead to base our assignments on the core property values for some or all of the codepoints in the Exceptions category. (Using the same example, if we follow IDNA2008 then U+0F0B would be PVALID, whereas if we base assignment on the core property value then this codepoint would be FREE_PVAL and NAME_DIS.) I understand the reasoning behind codepoints like sharp S and Greek final sigma because they were extensively discussed on the IDNA list, but other codepoints were not as controversial. I suppose the safest course would be to follow IDNA2008 here. The second-safest course would be to base all assignments on the core property value. The least safe course would be revisiting each codepoint individually and thus defining a PrecisExceptions table that differs in subtle ways from the IDNA2008 Exceptions table. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
- [precis] the Exceptions category Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [precis] the Exceptions category JFC Morfin