Re: [precis] Enforcement as an Idempotent operation

[William Fisher <[e-mail]>]

Looks good to me.

-Bill

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 3/23/17 1:46 PM, William Fisher wrote:
>> I agree with the "implementation note" strategy. In all my testing,
>> only the "Nickname" profile can fail to be idempotent for some inputs.
>> I have not found any inputs that fail the idempotent test using the
>> Username or OpaqueString profiles.  I believe "Nickname" has problems
>> because it uses NFKC.  I would add an implementation note/warning to
>> the Nickname profile.
>
> Hi Bill, thanks for your feedback. I propose the following text.
>
> 1. At the end of Section 7 ("Order of Operations") of 7564bis, add this
> note:
>
>    Because of the order of operations specified here, applying the rules
>    for any given PRECIS profile is not necessarily an idempotent
>    procedure (e.g., under certain circumstances, such as when Unicode
>    normalization form KC is used, performing Unicode normalization after
>    case mapping can still yield uppercase characters for certain code
>    points); therefore, implementations might need to apply the rules
>    more than once to an internationalized string.
>
> 2. At the end of Section 4 ("Use in Application Protocols") of 7700bis,
> add this note:
>
>    Implementation experience has shown that applying the rules for the
>    Nickname profile is not an idempotent procedure for all code points.
>    Therefore, implementations might need to apply the rules more than
>    once to a nickname string.
>
> 3. I see no harm in also adding the following note to the end of Section
> 5 ("Use in Application Protocols") of 7613bis:
>
>    Applying the rules for any given PRECIS profile is not necessarily
>    an idempotent procedure for all code points. Therefore,
>    implementations might need to apply the rules more than once to an
>    internationalized string.
>
> Peter
>