Re: [idn] Which lanuages/scripts to reorder?

["Soobok Lee" <lsb@postel.co.kr>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com>
To: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Cc: "Erik Nordmark" <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com>; <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: [idn] Which lanuages/scripts to reorder? 


> 
> Eric, 
> 
> > The process, if any, of future revision of thie WG's product, again, if any,
> > is important. Either there is none, and it is "permanent" until discarded,
> > or there is some, which may work (allowing semi-graceful revisioning).
> 
> This is assuming that the WG actually produces something.
> My concern in the area of reordering is that incremental requests for
> supporting additional laguages/scripts for reordering benefits might mean
> that the WG never gets to deliver anything - there are just too many
> scripts/languages that can appear.
> 
> Thus my concern is completely unrelated to the version issues
> others have brought up with respect to UTC.
> 
> If the WG embarks on doing reordering for 1,2,3,4 languages/scripts
> how do we know that this will be sufficient? Next month there might be
> requests for a few more languages/scripts. Etc.

seamless upgrade idea for adding new script reordering tables and new nameprep rules (NF/casemappings) are described in the posting titled with "suggestion : two prefices ....". No newer prefix other than (zq-- and uq--) will be needed forever.
I recommend you to comment on the suggestion first before you go further.

Soobok Lee

> 
>   Erik
> 
>