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

[Patrik Fältström]

On 14 apr 2009, at 16.52, Mark Davis wrote:

> In HTML5, for example, href="http://ÖBB.at <http://%c3%96bb.at/>" is  
> valid
> and interpreted according to IDNA2003. Because of that, there is no
> ambiguity in IDNA2003, it goes to  http://öbb.at <http://%c3%b6bb.at/ 
> >. End
> of story, no ambiguity.
>
> Luckily, HTML5 is designed around compatibility, and I strongly  
> suspect it
> would contine to support IDNA2003 mappings (cc'ing Ian to get his  
> take)
> under IDNA2003. It would have to glue these together in some fashion  
> with
> IDNA2008 support (such as by using http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46) 
> .

I do not see what you say is contrary to what Vint wrote.

And, one reason why we MUST now separate what is mapped, and what is  
stable, is definitely needed as early as possible, OR ELSE people are  
passing around data that is not mapped. This is one example where it  
is, I think, wrong to pass around things that is not an A-label or U- 
label. This as the mapping in many cases will be context dependent, we  
just can not say what is mapped and not mapped.

> But
> communicating with a different program that takes a different tack on
> resolving the domain name would cause a severe interoperability  
> problem. Why
> on earth do people think this kind of fragmentation of the Internet  
> is a
> good thing?

Mark, once again you try to talk about domain names, but do talk about  
URIs/IRIs, and you talk about HTML. That is not Domain Names, but one  
specific context.

    Patrik

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090414/52534b87/attachment-0001.pgp