RFC 8228, "Guidance on Designing Label Generation Rulesets (LGRs) Supporting Variant Labels", August 2017Source of RFC: IETF - NON WORKING GROUP
See Also: RFC 8228w/ inline errata
Errata ID: 6107
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Asmus Freytag
Date Reported: 2020-04-14
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2020-04-14
Section 14 says:
Because no variant label with any code point outside the repertoire could ever be allocated, the only logical choice for the non- reflexive mappings to out-of-repertoire code points is "blocked".
It should say:
Because no variant label with any code point outside the repertoire would ever be allocated in this example, the only logical choice for the non- reflexive mappings to out-of-repertoire code points is "blocked".
As written the sentence makes an absolute claim that isn't in accordance with RFC7940. While not usual, there are circumstances where allowing allocatable variants for a code point that has a reflexive "out-of-repertoire-var" mapping may make sense. Therefore, the statement needs to be read as restricted to the specific scenario or example under discussion.