Mapping Stability/Storage (was Re: M-Label or MVALID, and dangers with mappings?)

[Mark Davis]

So you are saying that Gmail (my emailer) would non-conformant
under IDNA2008 to have sent   "http://ÖBB.at <http://xn--bb-eka.at>" to you,
and your emailer was also non-conformant by sending
"http://ÖBB.at<http://xn--bb-eka.at>
"  back?
What value would it be to do that? Since we have agreed that the mapping is
permanent, what gain would that have? I just don't understand.

Mark


2009/4/11 Patrik Fältström <patrik at frobbit.se>

> On 12 apr 2009, at 03.13, Mark Davis wrote:
>
>  (2) I include http://ÖBB.at <http://xn--bb-eka.at> in this email message.
>> My emailer is IDNA aware,
>> and recognizes this as a URL. I send the email to yours, which is, I
>> presume, also IDNA aware. I don't want either one to lowercase it.
>>
>
> I think you show a case where you can not know before sending the email (as
> the domain name used in the URI is not a U-label) where the body of the text
> will end up, so I would say you MUST convert it to a U-label before sending
> it.
>
> This is exactly the confusion that exist in IDNA2003 that I see we must get
> away from. We must get people to use the U-label or A-label formats when
> passing things around (when not knowing DEFINITELY how the receiving side
> will treat the data).
>
>   Patrik
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090411/9b11be54/attachment.htm