Re-opening discussion about Mapping
patrik at frobbit.se
Mon Feb 8 06:03:15 CET 2010
And to phrase what John says otherwise, a) keep the 1:1 mapping between A-label and U-label, and b) ensure all U/A-labels are "usable" and c) be very careful so that users are not confused on what is an A/U-label and what is not.
On 8 feb 2010, at 05.02, John C Klensin wrote:
> FWIW, I find myself in 100% agreement with Paul on his answers.
> I would add that I'd hope that any additional mapping proposals,
> via the Independent Submission Editor or otherwise, be very
> careful to be consistent with the base IDNA2008 documents and,
> in particular, avoid doing anything that could make a valid
> IDNA2008 U-label inaccessible.
> --On Sunday, February 07, 2010 18:58 -0800 Paul Hoffman
> <phoffman at imc.org> wrote:
>> Just the polling questions from the PDF:
>>> Working Group Question:
>>> 1. Would the WG like to adopt the current "mapping document"
>>> 2. Would the WG like to engage in further discussion about
>>> this document, for example in the context of the Unicode TR46
>>> that advocates substantially more mapping than the present
>>> "mappings" document?
>> No. This seems to me unlikely to come to even rough WG or IETF
>> consensus. Having said that, I would encourage anyone else who
>> has a mapping proposal to consider making it an RFC through
>> the Independent Submissions Editor.
>>> 3. Would the WG propose an alternative path towards dealing
>>> with the question of mapping and if so, what proposition(s)
>>> are offered by the WG members?
>> No. Exhaustion set in months ago.
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20100208/04a1314e/attachment.pgp
More information about the Idna-update