[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-jpchar-00.txt
- To: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Re: [idn] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-idn-jpchar-00.txt
- From: Frank Ernens <fgernens@enternet.com.au>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:40:37 +1100
- Delivery-date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:03:09 -0800
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
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.