mappings-01

[Kent Karlsson]

Den 2009-07-05 20.41, skrev "Mark Davis" <mark at macchiato.com>:

> What I'm saying is that *no* mapping is better than an optional mapping. That
> is, there are three options people have mentioned:
> 
> A. mapping required by IDNA protocol
> B. no mapping as part of IDNA docs
> C. optional, UI-only mapping in IDNA docs
> 
> I think that C is far worse than B. So rather than going down the C route, I'd
> rather go back to John's original formulation (B).

> Both A and C are at least predictable. B is a muddle - it does not advance
> interoperability; it simply makes it harder to predict what implementations
> are going to do, since some will do it and some won't.

I guess you meant to write "Both A and B are at least predictable. C is a
muddle..."

                /kent k


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090705/c3b6278f/attachment.htm