Re: [idn] Roundup on optional characters

[Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>]

> - Some people like the idea of optional characters in scripts where
> there are common use for them. Of the people who actually chose
> between (a) [optional], (b) [prohibited], and (c) [allowed as
> normal], they chose (a).

I think the characterization of the problem as being about optional
characters is too narrow.  The general problem is one of ambiguous 
spellings resulting from transcription.  Optional characters are only
one example of this kind of ambiguity. 

> - Some people believe that the IETF is not the right place for this
> decision, mostly pointing towards the Unicode Consortium. It was
> noted that the Unicode Consortium hasn't done anything with optional
> characters yet and, if it does in the future, it won't affect the
> canonicalization in UTR 15 (which is stable for currently-assigned
> characters).

I'm not sure whether Unicode Consortium is the correct or only source
that should be consulted, but no matter who is consulted, the question
shouldn't be expressed solely in terms of optional characters.

I agree that UTR 15 canonicalization has nothing to do with this.

Keith