Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-jpchar-00.txt

[Frank Ernens <fgernens@enternet.com.au>]

I just realized I misunderstood what your draft was saying:

> Recommended order of applying canonicalization rules is as follows:
>
>        (1) "idntabjpcanon10"

Despite its name, this file has COMPATibility mappings.

>        (2) "idntabjpcom10" [presumably "idntabjpcomp10" was meant]

And this one has CANONical mappings. The file names are misleading
given existing terminology, and I was thinking they were the
other way around.

Now I think you're saying the client should fold compatibility 
characters (full- and half-width variants) and the resolver 
accept any valid Unicode spellings, including the nonspacing 
forms of the voiced and semi-voiced marks, but not 
compatibility characters. And that it doesn't matter to 
Japanese users if clients written for other languages don't 
fold the width variants. I agree with all of that.