<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/9/14 John C Klensin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:klensin@jck.com">klensin@jck.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
But, again, that has nothing to do with
domain identifiers or with IDNA in its role of making it
possible to accommodate non-ASCII identifiers in the DNS.<br></blockquote><br></div>Sorry, this only has to do with the IDNA2008 incapacity to match IDNA2003 as far as uppercases support is concerned. IMHO this is not what the Charter intended. <br>
<br>Anyway, my problem is _not_ to know what IDNA will be able to do or not. My interest is to make sure that IDNAPLUS is able to match users' expectations, and also to be 100% IDNA conformant. Obviously, IDNAPLUS will do things IDNA will not do. What I try to make sure is that the difference is only :<br>
<br>1. to support IDNA2003 upper-cases in U-Label<br>2. keeping PRIVATE USE ONE and PRIVATE USE TWO PVALID as PVALID, i.e. respecting Unicode's respect for users.<br><br>So, I do not spread an erroneous good news that could delay the IETF/LC. <br>
One has to be carefull about this kind of quick and easy solution.<br>Best.<br>Portzamparc.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>