Unicode position on local mapping

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:58:45AM -0800, Mark Davis wrote:

> The end result, even if the many gaping implementation chasms could get
> fleshed out in any kind of reasonable wayy, is pointless fragmentation --
> interoperability and security problems -- across users, across versions, and
> across programs.
> 
> Why would such fragmentation of the DNS be a good thing?

I think the answer to the question (and the response, also, to the
claim that the fragmentation is "pointless") comes down to deciding
what it is we're tryint to do.

If we're trying to make a determination of what's "good enough" for
right now, given what we know and what is practically implementable,
then it seems our answer to the question will be "no".  In that case,
we get a sort of IDNA2003-updates along the lines of what Paul Hoffman
is proposing.  We have to commit to re-doing this every so often, I
expect.

If we're trying to build a protocol that will avoid repeating the
current update cycle every so often, then the approach we've been
taking so far sounds like the right way to go.  What I haven't been
able to understand is how that approach doesn't lead to intractable
interoperability problems.  The "middle way" is to try to specify
which mappings are allowed.  Whether that will work, I am not sure.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.