Re: [idn] 1st stringprep issue: not answered and ignored

[Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>]

At 12:59 PM +0900 5/4/02, Soobok Lee wrote:
>Stringprep should have contained warnings about this or included new 
>revised casefolding operatins/tables,
>but it didn't .

Correct. This has been covered many times on the mailing list. You 
want stringprep to change the tables issued by the Unicode Consortium 
so that stringprep does not do NFKC the same way all other software 
that does NFKC does. There is little support for that proposition in 
the WG.

>  the authors and co-chairs have ignored this repeated warnings
>without any responses in this list.

There is a big difference between "ignoring" and "disagreeing with". 
We hear you asking over and over for something for which there is 
little support. Are you saying that we should include the concerns of 
every single person, even if the rest of the group disagrees with 
them?

>Therefore,stringprep(NFC(x)) == stringprep(x)  is not guaranteed. 
>This will cause unnoticeable failures.

Your equation is completely wrong. NFKC is part of stringprep.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium