IDNA2008: concerns about inconsistent mappings, and german sharp s

John C Klensin klensin at jck.com
Fri Dec 12 14:07:31 CET 2008



--On Friday, 12 December, 2008 18:20 +0900 Martin Duerst
<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:

> At 12:14 08/12/12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> At 4:29 PM -0800 12/11/08, Vint Cerf wrote:
>>> This advice belongs in rationale I would think. V
>> 
>> Here is the relevant text on this topic from the Rationale
>> document. You  can decide for yourself if this constitutes
>> advice that is or is not sufficient.
> 
> I think it is probably sufficient, but wording should be
> improved. In particular, there are too many might/could/...

>>   While it is beyond the scope of these documents to specify a
>>   preference for any of them, or to suggest that there are
>>   not other possibilities, there have traditionally been
>>   several approaches to problems of this type:
> 
> Reword to remove forward reference for "any of them", along
> the lines of:

Done (if someone objects or has better suggestions, please speak
up).

> There have traditionally been several approaches to problems
> of this type. Without any preference or claim to completeness,
> these are:
> 
>>   o  Do not permit use of the newly-available character at
>>   the registry level.  This might cause lookup failures if a
>>      domain name were written with the expectation of the
>>      IDNA2003 mapping behavior, but would eliminate any
>>      possibility of false matches.
> 
> might -> can; were -> is; would -> will

I think the subjunctive is correct in this context, but will
change it if others agree with Martin that the form he suggests
is more clear.

    john




More information about the Idna-update mailing list