What registries might do

["Martin J. Dürst"]

On 2009/12/01 0:31, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> But to be fair, the "registry completely restricts" policy won't work
>> if ß is PVALID in IDNA2008.  Suppose .at by policy excludes (and
>> doesn't map) ß.  What will happen then is that IDNA2003 clients will
>> map ß to ss, and so a label ${example}ß.at will work for them; when
>> the human on the other side of that client does its next upgrade,
>> ${example}ß.at suddenly stops working.  This is the problem that
>> opponents of making ß PVALID are talking about.
>
> Andrew,
>
> Thanks for that - this is exactly what i am worried about - plus, i am really concerned about incompatible mappings. Sure we could do strict bundling to avoid this, but what would be the gain compared to the current situation?

That you can loosen this strict bundling after IDNA 2008 is well deployed.

Regards,    Martin.

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp