Updating RFC 5890-5893 (IDNA 2008) to Full Standard

[Mark Davis ☕]

> Mapping is not part of IDNA2008

I specifically did not say it was.

Option 1 is clearly *not* IDNA2008. That is option 2.

If Option 1 is expressed so as to accurately represent an alternative
approach that does maintain compatibility, then it includes mapping.


Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**



On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Patrik Fältström <paf at frobbit.se> wrote:

> Offline I have been asked to respond after all, so here we go.
>
> On 16 nov 2012, at 12:36, Mark Davis ☕ <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
>
> > This inaccurately represents #1.
>
> What is different between what I wrote and what you wrote?
>
> > More accurate would be:
> > • Use an algorithm based on Unicode Codepoint meta data (from Unicode
> Consortium) to calculate whether codepoints where to be allowed or not:
> > • devise the algorithm so as to maintain compatibility with idna2003 as
> much as possible.
>
> Correct.
>
> > • maintain the lowercase mappings from idna2003 so that uppercase
> variants still work.
>
> Mapping is not part of IDNA2008, and the need for a 1:1 mapping between A-
> and U-label is a requirement as outlined in various documents.
>
> > • As with idna2003, ß can be used as a character on input, but resolves
> to the same domain label as when using SS or ss.
>
> I very explicitly did write inability to use ß in an A- or U-label.
>
>    Patrik
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20121116/087c51c8/attachment-0001.html>