Re: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

On 2018/04/03 10:56, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: Whew!  Thanks for explaining the joke! Everyone here really thought they were serious.  Maybe you should write to the authors of the RFC and explain to them that their growth-function is incorrect.  I'm sure they'd be glad of the

Re: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

On 4/2/2018 7:02 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: We're missing the definition of "ymojis", a safer alternatives of "umojis" (unknown), but that "you" can create yourself for use by yourself Not to mention "əmojis", as in "Uh, Moe! Jeez, why are we still talking about this?!" --Ken

Re: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

For "ymojis" to be really private, they would have to be very secure, and 128 bit would not be enough: "ymojis" should now be encoded with and least 512 bits and probably even 1024 bits (secure digital fingerprints), not 128 bits like MD5, or 160 bits like SHA1. So let's encode Unicode with

Re: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

Note: We're missing the definition of "ymojis", a safer alternatives of "umojis" (unknown), but that "you" can create yourself for use by yourself (i.e. private-use umojis) and whose meaning is not meant to be understood by anyone else than you, but which is warrantied to be understood by you,

Re: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

Whew!  Thanks for explaining the joke! Everyone here really thought they were serious.  Maybe you should write to the authors of the RFC and explain to them that their growth-function is incorrect.  I'm sure they'd be glad of the correction. ~mark On 04/02/2018 09:49 PM, Philippe Verdy via

Re: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

It's fun to consider the introdroduction (after emojis) of imojis, amojis, umojis and omojis for individual people (or named pets), alien species (E.T. wants to be able to call home with his own language and script !), unknown things, and obfuscated entities. Also fun for new "trollface"

Re: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

On 04/02/2018 08:52 PM, J Decker via Unicode wrote: On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode > wrote: For unique identifiers for every person, place, thing, etc, consider

Re: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > For unique identifiers for every person, place, thing, etc, consider > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier which are > indeed 128 bits. > > What makes you think a single "glyph"

Re: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

For unique identifiers for every person, place, thing, etc, consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier which are indeed 128 bits. What makes you think a single "glyph" that represents one of these 3.4⏨38 items could possibly be sensibly distinguishable at any sort of

Re: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

I was really hoping this was a joke... it didn't hit me it was April 1... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(Unicode) PlaneAllocated code points[note 1] Assigned characters[note 2]

RE: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

Doug Ewell wrote: > Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> Please enjoy. Sorry for being late with forwarding, at least in some >> parts of the world. > Unfortunately, we know some folks will look past the humor and use this as a springboard for the recurring theme "Yes, what *will* we do when Unicode

RE: Fwd: RFC 8369 on Internationalizing IPv6 Using 128-Bit Unicode

Martin J. Dürst wrote: > Please enjoy. Sorry for being late with forwarding, at least in some > parts of the world. Unfortunately, we know some folks will look past the humor and use this as a springboard for the recurring theme "Yes, what *will* we do when Unicode runs out of code points?" I

Thai phintuu + sara u(u)

Does anyone know of any attested cases in Thai script of a phintuu appearing together with either sara u or sara uu, _and_ with the phintuu positioned below the sara u(u)? Thanks Peter