Re: [idn] Zone rules (was: wg milestones update)

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Jony,

My first comment is that requirement 35 has been in the requirements document
for several drafts. A one line expressions of preference is under motivating.

My second comment is that any mechanism which allows non-degenerate scope,
and for which a policy of specific consistency between two or more instances
of scope, requires a  mechanism to obtain consistency. The notion that
	"[e]ither we are consistent or we are inconsistent, but we cannot
	have it once one way and once the other."
presumes that consistency is a global, binary property. Is this consistency
loose and converging or strict and atemporal?

My third comment is in response to your example. Could you provide one with
specific code-points and two distinct equivalence rules and restate the core
issue?

Incidently, since you happened to mention digits, Wabanakis in New England,
Quebec, and the Canadian Maritimes define "8" as an equivalent to "ou", as
the "w" character was not present in French when that writing system was
adopted. There are UNICODE code points for the characters, but North American
keyboards have the digit "8", which is used.

So, without stepping outside of the LDH code points, the manager of a zone
could create a rule that treats a 0x38 as 0x4f followed by 0x55, assuming
the "8" appeared within an alpha string as the first, or as 0x6f followed
by 0x75, for an in-fix character, and 0x38 if as a terminal, and, as 0x57
or 0x77, using the same first-or-infix rule. This could "suit the purpose
of the zone".

I'd appreciate clarification if this is or isn't an instance of the practice
(depricated in your note) referred in in requirement 35. I could be lacking
a clue.

Finally, what do you propose as rewording of requirement 35?

Eric

References:
U+0222	LATIN CAPITAL LETTER OU
U+0223	LATIN SMALL LETTER OU