Another Transition Plan Proposal
gerv at mozilla.org
Fri Dec 11 00:26:04 CET 2009
On 10/12/09 15:07, Shawn Steele wrote:
> Phase 1: I think that in addition to the 5 key areas, that other
> zone operators should be encouraged to consider if this applies to
> them as well.
Sure. My assertion was only that without the support of all five, the
plan is probably a non-starter. The more the merrier :-)
> Phase 2: Instead of "reporting" back. I'd like to see something
> like "6 months after the RFC is published clients start to change
> their implementations."
OK. As long as we have buy-in from them on the amount of time they need.
Having said that, if we reached 6 months, and the .de registry said "we
need another month", we wouldn't ship a Firefox making the change.
Perhaps the trick is, instead of saying "once they'd reported back", say
"unless we hear an official request, with rationale, for more time".
Reverse the default.
> Phase 3: I think the registries you've mentioned aren't very
> interested in un-bundling the sharp s, so I don't think the
> conjecture is helpful, and is perhaps misleading.
OK, great. I certainly think unbundling is a bad idea, but my vague
impression from some of the discussion on this list is that some locales
would consider it.
More information about the Idna-update