Changing the values of domain names and the need for mapping

[Patrik Fältström]

On 20 feb 2009, at 20.59, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> That is certainly a change in behaviour, and one that opens the
> possibility for abuse in a way that the other examples didn't (because
> those other characters were not mapped to something else by protocol).

Absolutely, but it is something we already have discussed many times  
on this mailing list, and elsewhere, and the conclusion has always  
been that "it is worth taking this step". There have always been  
people against it, and they have always popped up over and over again.  
We need to have this horse buried even deeper obviously. "Please look  
in the archives" I think is a term used in the IETF, although not  
always in a friendly manner.

I am one of the persons that on this mailing list in the first round  
of discussions was AGAINST this change, but after listening to the  
people that run registries and the ones that use the language that use  
this character (and in some cases those people are the same), and THEY  
strongly wanted this change, I changed my mind. I since then (several  
years ago now) understand to some degree both the good and bad things,  
and think the people that wanted the change all along where correct.

Can we move on please?

     Patrik

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090221/a7bead7e/attachment.pgp