Michel at suignard.com
Sun Dec 20 00:16:59 CET 2009
> From Vint Cerf
> Another way to think about this, Michel, is that the IDNABIS
> working group simply does not make a normative recommendation
> on mapping. It has been consistent about no mapping for
> registration (in other words, you register only PVALID
> characters and the registry does not map for the registrant).
> With regard to lookup, there isn't consensus within the IDNABIS
> WG on either the nature of mappings or even the advisability.
No disagreement here, my message was aiming at making the mapping process consistent between idna-mappings and Unicode TR 46, to avoid confusion among implementers. The fact that idna-mappings is out there in the idna-bis web page is still an implied indication that there is support for it. If it gets published either as an optional part of idna 2008 or separately, it would still be a good idea to converge with what was suggested in Unicode TR46.
> It has been suggested that a better forum in which to deal with
> IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 incompatibility is the ICANN IDN Guidelines
> Committee. That may be a better forum with broader participation
> than the IDNABIS working group in which the TR46 proposal or other
> proposals may be discussed. If we adopt Cary Karp's offer, your
> observations, below, would be input into the Guidelines committee
Compatibility issues are only part of the problem. Having a well recognized mapping is also important. Combining both as done in the proposal I am advocating is probably the best solution. Finally I am not sure to see how the Guidelines committee process will create broader participation if we are limited to discretionary input into a committee where most of us have no say.
More information about the Idna-update