Changing the values of domain names and the need for mapping

Paul Hoffman phoffman at imc.org
Fri Feb 20 02:59:36 CET 2009


At 7:41 PM -0500 2/19/09, Vint Cerf wrote:
>Your proposal to extend 2003 is in effect a mapping proposal since mapping is part of the IDNA2003 structure, is it not?

Yes, exactly.

>If you don't want to discuss your proposal at the next meeting that's ok with me but I was trying to accommodate it.

I'm happy to speak about it; I never said anything to the contrary.

>If you think a re-chartering is needed then I would recommend that we complete the current idna2008 vector and separately consider whether a new effort is needed.

As I have said before, rechartering is now needed even if we keep on the "current idna2008 vector". Given that we need to recharter, maybe we should recharter to a much simpler work path.

>With regard to esszet and final sigma, my sense of the email and face/face discussions is that the most directly affected parties (german speakers particularly in .de and .ch were proponents on the esszet matter and .gr favored inclusion of final sigma as a pvalid character despite earlier mapping behaviors).

That may be true, but it is also irrelevant. If we made decisions like that in 2003, we would have language tags in IDNA2003 for CJK characters (and lots of other changes as well). What is relevant is whether the changes that are proposed are (a) the consensus of the Working Group and (b) within our charter.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list