On 2015/02/05 15:04, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Pete Resnick wrote:
Ah, so perhaps reversing it, and being more specific, would be better:
Even so, implementations that are sensitive to the advice given in
this specification (to use the more restrictive IdentifierClass
whenever possible, or otherwise to only allow a restricted set of
characters in the FreeformClass, particularly avoiding ones whose
implications they don't actually understand) are unlikely to run
into significant problems as a consequence of these issues or
potential changes.
Is that clearer for everyone?
Yes, thank you.
I think the above should work. Giving that it's the most busy time of
the Japanese academic year, I haven't been able to follow the discussion
in as much detail as I would have wanted, but I remember that quite some
time ago, I was very much concerned by phrases along the line of "only
allow those characters whose implications they fully understand".
Except maybe for two or three people on the Unicode Technical Committee
I know, I wouldn't want to claim that anybody knows the implications of
even a significant (in terms of size and use) part of the Unicode
repertoire. And for the average implementer or system administrator,
it's of course much less. But we definitely don't want that to lead to a
situation where we go back to (some time) last century and ASCII only.
Given that the text is now very clearly predicated on FreeformClass,
which is indeed wide open, it looks okay.
Regards, Martin.
_______________________________________________
precis mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
