Re: [idn] complexity/simplicity: NAMEPREP code vs ACE codes

["Mark Davis" <mark@macchiato.com>]

I agree that NamePrep is more complex than the ACEs. However, it is not that
complicated, and there is a very extensive compliance test for NFKC on the
Unicode site.

Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Makoto Ishisone" <ishisone@sra.co.jp>
To: <lsb@postel.co.kr>
Cc: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 08:01
Subject: Re: [idn] complexity/simplicity: NAMEPREP code vs ACE codes


> In message <001e01c0ffd0$1a717ee0$ed1bd9d2@postel.co.kr>,
> "Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr> wrote:
> > For whom had never looked into NAMEPREP codes in MDNkit of JPNIC,
> >  ...
> > [root@bora lib]# wc name*[hc] uni*[hc]
> >     296    1109    8554 nameprep.c
> >     136     804    5475 nameprep_template.c
> >    1694   11778   73804 nameprepdata.c
> >     484    1822   12314 unicode.c
> >    6806   38573  327222 unicodedata.c
> >    9416   54086  427369 total
>
> If you look closer, you'll find that nameprepdata.c and unicodedata.c
> above contain only data -- some large tables, which are generated from
> NAMEPREP draft and Unicode Character Database.  So I don't think it is
> fair to count them when you compare complexity.  On the other hand
> you overlooked unormalize.c, which implements Unicode Normalization
> Forms.
>
> Anyway I agree that NAMEPREP (NFKC in particular) is no simpler than
> most of the proposed ACEs.  Before implementing NFKC you have to read
> the specification, which is longer than any ACE I-Ds, and relevant
> documents, understand what's going on, and generate tables from the
> data...  Also I think it is harder to test the correctness of the
> implementation.
>
> -- ishisone@sra.co.jp
>
>