[idn] Re: [idn-nameprep] Arabic hyphen-like glyph

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

--On 01-07-26 17.55 +0800 "James Seng/Personal" <James@seng.cc> wrote:

> If there is intention to talk about "folding look-alive characters" then
> please write an I-D, get your 7 core interest then come back to the wg.
> Personally, I do not suggest anyone going into this rathole...

Before you do this, think about what this means:

- In the IETF, we have been extremely careful NOT talking about
  individual characters, codepoints or such, but instead all the time
  referenced other standards bodies when talking about such details.
- In various protocols, we have been pointing to different bodies,
  depending on mood, time of day or even technical merits(!).

Now, IF you are unhappy with nameprep of today, I want you to be extremely
clear whether:

[A] You think the Unicode tables, unification rules etc are wrong, and you
want to change those and instead do the work in the IETF (basically, scrap
what is defined in the Unicode Consortium or ISO because you belive IETF
can do a better job).

[B] You think a different organization than Unicode Consortium is better to
reference than the Unicode Technical Reports (and we still will not do
character by character definitions in the IETF).

Is it [A] or [B] you are after?

If [A], why would IETF be better on this, and don't you think yet another
standard body doing character things would be bad for the world?

If [B], which body are you thinking of?


My point is, if you are unhappy with work done by an organization which we
reference we in the IETF should either bring the issues over there, or
reference some other organization. And, we need to make up our mind on
which one of these two paths we want to follow. Doing both is often a bad
idea (and a waste of time and resources).

     paf