Consensus Call Tranche 8 (Character Adjustments)

Andrew Sullivan ajs at commandprompt.com
Wed Oct 15 20:13:54 CEST 2008


On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 07:19:40PM +0200, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> Are we trusting one more than the other?
> 
> Do we listen more to more active people on this mailing list than  
> parties not as active?

The only reason I have for responding the way I do is that I
understand these responses to be the most consistent with the initial
principles from which we start: use the Unicode properties, do
everything as much as possible by tables, and introduce as few
exceptions as are possible and practical.  The constraint on "possible
and practical" is "internationalize LDH" rather than other goals (such
as "write novels in DNS labels" or "make DNS safe for everyone, given
that there are a lot of visially-confusable characters" or even
"ensure that zone operators can't permit bad things").

As far as I am able to tell -- but I'm not an expert in these matters,
and I don't really have the time to become one -- the inclusion and
exclusion in the respective cases are the most consistent with those
principles.  If we want to adopt other principles, that's ok with me
too.  It might change my opinion on these cases.  I don't have any
opinion what the outcome should be overall; I only have an opinion
given the overall design principles we're trying to follow.  (This is
the same reason I thought that, even though it's very unlikely anyone
will want domain names in, say, Phoenician, the design principle
didn't really permit us to exclude the archaic characters.)

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at commandprompt.com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/


More information about the Idna-update mailing list