Mapping (was: Issues lists and the "preprocessing" topic)

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Tue Aug 19 17:09:15 CEST 2008


At 15:47 19/08/2008, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>For me, the nagging worry is that you can pack just about anything you
>like into "user interface convenience".  Why not just say that
>local-option mapping SHOULD NOT be used except when required for
>compatibility with IDNA2003?  I get that this could make some
>interfaces clunkier.  But it seems to me that local mapping on the
>grounds of convenience surely just means "map when you like", so we
>should expect that every DISALLOWED character ends up mapped somehow,
>in different ways depending on local policy.  Such a situation seems
>to me to have a great potential for surprising results.

I certainly share that concern. Moreover than local policy will be 
expressed in local languages and that translating the RFC in local 
languages would call for a multilingual terminology reference to be 
structured and documented. IDNA is about DNS internationalization, 
not about DNS  multilingualization. It means that it respects RFC 
3935 position to analyse, document, and operate in ASCII English to 
make the Legacy Internet work better. There should be 
_no_local_policy_ "permitted", they should all be "documented", 
meaning that IDNA is local proof. We are in the same situation as the 
International English 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_English) able to quote 
local languages.

jfc

    



More information about the Idna-update mailing list