Two-step mapping

[Shawn Steele]

I'm stating my opinion of recent on-list discussion.  That doesn't mean that I'm right or that wording will change (though it sounds like I hope it would, but I haven't looked at the latest copy recently.)

-Shawn
________________________________
From: Wil Tan [wil at cloudregistry.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:06 AM
To: Shawn Steele
Cc: IDNA update work
Subject: Re: Two-step mapping

Shawn,

By that, you mean this wording will likely go away?
Thanks.

=wil

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com<mailto:Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>> wrote:
I believe the WG was moving in the direction of a consistent mapping.

- Shawn
________________________________
From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no<mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no> [idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no<mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no>] on behalf of Wil Tan [wil at cloudregistry.net<mailto:wil at cloudregistry.net>]
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:21 PM
To: IDNA update work
Subject: Two-step mapping

The architectural principles section, in the 2nd last paragraph says:

The present version of IDNA (...) does not provide explicit mapping instructions. Instead, it assumes that the application (perhaps via an operating system input method) will do whatever mapping it requires to convert input into Unicode code points.  This has the advantage of giving flexibility to the application to choose a mapping that is suitable for its user given specific user requirements, and avoids the two-step mapping of the original protocol.

In practice, if the application were to do any mapping, it is likely to perform a two-step mapping anyway:

1. As earlier paragraph suggests, the first step of getting the input as Unicode code points is likely the function of the input method or operating system event loop.
2. The application then performs its local mappings.

Perhaps it's better to say ".. the application to choose a mapping that is suitable for its user given specific user requirements, and perform it prior to using it in the registration or lookup steps of the protocol"? Or maybe I'm missing an important point.

Thanks,
=wil



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090726/151e6294/attachment-0001.htm