U-labels, NFC, and symmetry
stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Apr 15 17:52:34 CEST 2011
On 4/15/11 9:50 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 07:19:34AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> How is it that NFC meets the symmetry requirement, but NFD does not?
> NFC meets the symmetry requirement because a string in NFD just isn't
> a U-label, period. It might be equivalent to a string in NFC that is
> a U-label, but it is not itself a U-label.
> This is really no different from the other mapping cases. Given
> locale L and a string in ISO8859-N, you might know how to map string
> S(L,ISO8859-N) into a U-label, at which point you could start doing
> work on it. But IDNA2008 is silent on that.
> Similarly, given unnormalized Unicode, you could run it through NFC
> (and maybe some other stuff) and get it to be a U-label, but it isn't
> a U-label before that.
> If what you're saying is that you want a definition of D-compatible
> U-label, I am not sure whether that is practical.
I (well, the XMPP folks) *might* want a D-compatible domaineything. I
think we've already determined that such a thing would not be a U-label.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Idna-update