Re: [idn] Roundup on optional characters

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

At 4:19 PM -0400 8/15/00, Keith Moore wrote:
>  > - 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.

No, that's exactly the problem we are discussing now. You might have 
other problems you want to discuss, of course.

>   The general problem is one of ambiguous
>spellings resulting from transcription.  Optional characters are only
>one example of this kind of ambiguity.

Correct, and it is the one we are discussing now. There is general 
agreement that common misspellings or mis-identification of letters 
is simply too hard to deal with and therefore out of scope. However, 
Jonathan brought up a very good point, which is that in at least one 
script, some characters are considered optional for inclusion. We are 
trying to deal with that particular issue.

>  > - 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.

Could you recommend who else you think is a good source?

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

Yup.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium