<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Erik van der Poel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:erikv@google.com">erikv@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Well, then maybe it would be better to have a separate value called<br>
TRANSITIONAL, but registries must not register labels with<br>
TRANSITIONAL characters, and clients must not map them nor look them<br>
up. How does that sound?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div><br>I've been having trouble understanding how TRANSITIONAL characters that could not be mapped or looked up by clients would help us out here. (You're not the only one Erik, I was just thinking of this offline)<br>
<br>If I understand correctly, Web browsers in particular visit a corpus of Web pages with links that they would like to not only continue to support, but also continue to resolve to the same host (absent other changes). So on the day that somebody upgrades to the new version of a browser with IDNA2008, their link destinations for TRANSITIONAL characters do not change.<br>
<br>"Do not change" also means that the user doesn't suddenly start getting an error trying to follow a link with a TRANSITIONAL character in the domain.<br><br>I agree that in some models, an error is better than going to an indeterminate destination. But only in some models. To the user, upgrading their browser and suddenly having links with ß in domains fail where it succeeded the day before, does not seem like a real upgrade.<br>
<br>Lisa<br></div></div><br>