Browser IDN display policy: opinions sought
tinadam at gmail.com
Tue Dec 13 06:48:27 CET 2011
2011/12/12 "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp>:
> On 2011/12/13 7:28, Tina Dam wrote:
>>> Or in other words: If the domain name can be displayed as a U-label, in a
>>> technically safe way, why not display it as an U-label?
>> I agree with others that the three other options are not to be
>> desired. But since I don't see us reaching a 100% solution anytime
>> soon, so if I had to select between A, B, and C, I would select A.
>> The issues between the different options have been discussed at
>> lenght, so let me just say that the biggest problem I have with B is
>> that it leave it up to Firefox to decide what is a good/bad TLD
>> registry. I think that belongs elsewhere, namely with ICANN.
> If we had enough faith in ICANN, that might work. But judging from the mails
> on this list from people close to the ICANN process, I see lots of doubts
> and not much faith at all.
I saw the doubt and no-faith as well, but I still did not see
suggestions that it belong elsewhere...I do not think ICANN has the
necessary staff ressources to it either, but that does not chnage the
fact that the job belongs there. As with other things ICANN can hire
or outsource the necessary resources.
> Also, as I have said earlier, asking "one only of A or B or C" is
> essentially the wrong question. A 100% solution will indeed be difficult,
> but each of A or B or C only are essentially something like 20% solutions,
> throwing most of the baby (in terms of the problem, totally harmless IDNs)
> out with the bathwater.
Well, Gerv did asked for a selection, so that was mine. I don't think
it is as low as a 20% solution - at least I have personally not seen
_that_ many complaints. I also think modifying A into D is easier than
going from B to D, so I think for Firefox to go from B to A _is_ an
improvement and a step in the right direction.
More information about the Idna-update