The real issue: interopability, and a proposal (Was: Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma)
"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue Dec 1 12:31:52 CET 2009
On 2009/12/01 18:59, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:
> I think it's not very likely that all vendors agree on a single mapping - particularly with the WG scope of not dealing with a mapping as part of the protocol. However, i'd like to propose the following:
> - add text to Section 5 of idnabis-protocol that says
> "characters that are PVALID MUST NOT be subject to mappings".
I like this idea. It seems to capture something that was essentially
obvious to me, but apparently not to some others. Essentially, it says
"don't mess around with valid domain names".
> Or (more focused)
> "characters that are listed as Exceptions (F) in Section 2.6
> of [tables] MUST NOT be subject to mappings"
This would essentially say that you *can* map anything else, starting
with 'a', which I think would definitely be the wrong message, and not
what anybody would intend.
> I'm not sure whether that contradicts the "local matters" part in Section 5.1
This is about registration, but we are mainly concerned about lookup now.
> (and i'm pretty sure it creates problems elsewhere),
What kinds of problems would that be?
> but i think it
> solves the "permanent interopability" problem outlined above.
> That means that "ß" stops working during the transition period,
Which is more or less where we are now.
> but also means that it can be treated as an independent character
> *after* the transition - bundling is not required, Mr Weiss
> and Mr Weiß can both have their distinct domain names, etc..
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
More information about the Idna-update