Mark Davis ☕ mark at macchiato.com
Wed Dec 2 22:14:05 CET 2009

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> (=

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


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 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list