Touchstones for "Mapping"

[Vint Cerf]

Lisa,

thanks this is a helpful summary.


I suppose as to reality that YMMV :-)


I am looking forward to working with the WG members to use these ideas  
and the (transitional?) mapping mechanism to come to closure on  
IDNA2008.

v


Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
202-370-5637
vint at google.com




On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

>
> I heard a few principles in IDNABIS this week that I'd like to
> identify.  They all relate to "Mapping", or "input assistance", but at
> any rate we're talking about pre-lookup logic.
>
> 1.  Canonical forms:  encourage labels to be stored and displayed,
> whenever possible, in a canonical form.  The protocol only uses the
> canonical form.
>
> 2. Conservatism: in no cases map something valid to something else
> valid!
>
> 3.  Consistency of conversion: encourage software to apply the same
> global conversions (aka mappings) if they feel it necessary to help
> users get from an invalid input to a ULabel. Some implementors will,
> however, choose to use alternate mappings no matter what we do.
>
> 4.  Confirmation: encourage software implementors to confirm a valid
> ULabel as the user's intended input, where possible and appropriate
>
> The last one I discussed mostly after the second meeting slot, but it
> seemed to help people feel much more comfortable with having software
> map user input to something valid.
>
> I believe this is a reality-based approach, but that's only insofar as
> I understand reality!
>
> Lisa
>
> --- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---
> Messaging Architects sponsors The Spamhaus Project.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update