Pete Resnick <presnick(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> writes:
On 5/29/11 1:29 PM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
John C Klensin<john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> writes:
--On Sunday, May 29, 2011 08:58 +0200 Simon Josefsson
in a Unicode 6.0 environment, evaluate U+19DA as PVALID and
therefore not raise that error, then it is not "compliant"
with RFC 5892, irrelevant of the "Updates" status of the
I don't see how.
My code uses the tables from RFC 5892 which were generated in
an Unicode 5.2 environment.
Then you are, in my terminology, implementing RFC 5892 in a "Unicode
5.2 environment". Your implementation is carrying the "5.2
environment" with it.
The Unicode library used during run-time, for RFC 5891, is version 6.0
But I now think I see the source of the misunderstanding:
You could reasonably say that your implementation is conformant
but current only to Unicode 5.2. If you are willing to say
that, I guess you don't need to change anything.
I claim my implementation is compliant to all requirements in RFC 5890,
RFC 5891, RFC 5892 and RFC 5893.
There's the problem. You can't claim that your implementation is
compliant with the above RFCs without also mentioning the version of
Unicode you are using, precisely because the RFCs are now Unicode
version independent. Your implementation that evaluates U+19DA as
PVALID is complaint with the RFCs *as applied to Unicode version
5.2*. Your implementation that evaluates U+19DA as PVALID is *not*
complaint with the RFCs *as applied to Unicode version 6.0*.
The correct claim would then be that I use Unicode 5.2 (for tables) and
Unicode 6.0 (for run-time).
I believe this is typical of how IDNA2008 will be deployed: the IDNA2008
implementation uses pre-computed tables for one Unicode version fixed at
compile-time, and the Unicode library on the system may be more rapidly
changing and could support a later version of Unicode.
Can you point to some (normative) requirement in IDNA2008 that forbids
Ietf mailing list