The Future of IDNA
james at seng.sg
Fri Mar 20 01:21:12 CET 2009
Perhaps look at the problem in another way.
Is tonos still being used?
If not, perhaps an even easier way for .gr to consider is to forbid it
(U+0384) in their registration and the problem will go away at the 2nd
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Erik van der Poel <erikv at google.com> wrote:
>>> > This is a complete red herring, I think, because there are lots of
>>> > zone administrators in the universe who are paying exactly no
>>> > attention to the IETF.
>>> We have plenty of Unicode and language experts on this mailing list.
>>> Don't you think someone would have spoken up if they thought that
>>> mapping tonos away is a bad idea?
>> O.k., I'm a Unicode and language expert on this mailing list. *I*
>> think mapping tonos away in the protocol is a bad idea. That is
>> the kind of equivalencing that *should* be done by bundling
>> (if required).
> Do you have first-hand experience with the difficulty of bundling?
>> It goes even *further* down the path of
>> mapping (and in this case, is even a language-specific mapping)
> Note that I am not recommending language-specific mappings in contexts
> where the language is not known.
> By the way, what languages require the separate registration of names
> that differ only in the presence or absence of tonos? And how large
> are those communities?
> Also, note that even if you cannot register tonos/tonos-less names
> separately under my proposal, you can display tonos via
>> than IDNA 2003, so would introduce an interoperability problem
>> with IDNA 2003 in the *opposite* direction of the current
>> situation of not providing even any mappings to match what is done
>> in IDNA 2003.
> Yes, it is in the opposite direction, and I have outlined a transition
> strategy for adding or removing mappings. Is the strategy unclear?
> Should I provide more details?
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update