<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">there is no way to guarantee this uniformity; nor was the WG able to define every possible case in which problems would arise. The range of possibilities is too great given the huge number of new symbols introduced by IDNA. This was debated extensively during the last 2 years and that is the working group consensus as I see it.<div><br></div><div>vint</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Nov 4, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Gihan Dias wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> 2009-11-04 ප.ව. 3:41 දින, Vint Cerf ලිව්වා: <blockquote cite="mid:CD5F03D3-43A4-4BEB-81B9-D34B98AE58EF@google.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">the WG concluded that the
registry or registrar had to be cognizant of this kind of anomaly and
reject problematic registration requests.
</pre> </blockquote> <font size="+1">Unfortunately</font>, it is impossible to make sure *all* registrars (or even all registries) would uniformly handle problematic requests.<br> <br> We need mandatory rules for registrations, which are checked by software in lookups.<br> <br> Gihan<br> LK Domain Registry / Sri Lanka IDN Task Force<br> </div> _______________________________________________<br>Idna-update mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>