Definitions limit on label length in UTF-8

[Shawn Steele]

That's fine, I was just curious :)

-Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com] 
Sent: Monday, September 14,  2009 14:58
To: Shawn Steele
Cc: idna-update at alvestrand.no
Subject: Re: Definitions limit on label length in UTF-8

no i am counting in code points regardless of how expressed - is that  
a reasonably metric?

v

On Sep 14, 2009, at 3:58 PM, Shawn Steele wrote:

> You're suggesting some smaller # of Unicode characters?  Are you  
> counting in UTF-16?
>
> -Shawn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vint Cerf [mailto:vint at google.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 14,  2009 12:42
> To: Shawn Steele; idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Re: Definitions limit on label length in UTF-8
>
> Expressing limits in unicode characters (code points) regardless of  
> coding
> scheme seems like a useful way to offer insight for implementers. V
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no <idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> >
> To: idna-update at alvestrand.no <idna-update at alvestrand.no>
> Sent: Mon Sep 14 12:59:08 2009
> Subject: Definitions limit on label length in UTF-8
>
> FWIW: I think that UTF-8 should NOT be a limit for Punycode.  How an  
> app (or
> OS) encodes a decoded Punycode string internally is up to them.  I  
> doubt
> we'd express such limits in GB-18030 or EUC-JP?
>
> The only case I can think of for a UTF-8 limit is in the event  
> someone made
> a UTF-8 clean DNS in the future.  However an ASCII punycode label is  
> clearly
> not the same thing, even if it represents a similar string.
>
> In practice, all imposing a UTF-8 length limit does is to break  
> IDNA2003
> further, make it harder to code, and a little more error-prone.
>
> -Shawn
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>