Bundling

[Mark Davis ☕]

The problem with bundling is that everyone has to do it, otherwise links
don't work as expected. The problem isn't limited to .DE, .AT, and .GR.

Take these links:

Schloß Schönbrunn - http://xn--schloss-schnbrunn-9zb.blogspot.com/
Schloß Schönbrunn - http://xn--schlo-schnbrunn-uib90b.blogspot.com/ - not
mapping ß

Unless the registry maintained by blogspot also bundles, these will have the
transition problem. And there are gazillions of registries: for
example, Schönbrunn.de ( = xn--schnbrunn-27a.de) is the registry for:

Schloß.Schönbrunn.de <http://schloss.xn--schnbrunn-27a.de> (=
xn--Schlo-pqa.xn--chnbrunn-9zb.de) and
Schloss.Schönbrunn.de <http://Schloss.xn--schnbrunn-27a.de> (=
xn--Schloss.xn--chnbrunn-9zb.de)

That's why I see the choice as either:

a) the display processing that Microsoft suggested (what is in UTS46).
b) a workable transition plan (perhaps something like the TRANSITIONAL
policy)

Mark


On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:17, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>wrote:

> I guess one thing that bothers me about "those 4 characters" is that most
> of the "problems" with making them PVALID can be fixed by bundling.  In fact
> we've heard .de and .at say they want to bundle Eszett.
>
> Bundling is obviously interesting for any back-compat/transition.  We also
> know why bundling is interesting for Eszett.
>
> It's maybe also interesting for Final Sigma in case something's lower
> cased.  Thinking of a CamelCased word.  Someone also mentioned that there
> are other shortcuts people make typing Greek, which could cause additional
> bundling.
>
> For ZWJ/ZWNJ bundling might be less interesting, except for compatibility?
>  I don't know enough about the languages except that these are required for
> display.
>
> The one thing that's consistent with a bundling approach is that the
> "bundling" effectively causes an effect like mapping.  The difference is
> that the bundler has some control over the priority of the names in the
> bundle (eg: they can prefer a display form, although user entry or something
> else might not let them have complete control of display.)
>
> So if that's how the problem will be solved, is there a better way to state
> it?  Or should bundling in these cases just be a BCP?
>
> -Shawn
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20091202/7c7fe3cd/attachment.htm