Jefsey !<br><br>He understood it !!!<br>Thank you Pete !<br><br>Portzamparc<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/3/26 Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@shinkuro.com">ajs@shinkuro.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
IDNA of any kind inserts a layer above the DNS but possibly below the<br>
application interface that converts one kind of input (U-labels) into<br>
another kind for the DNS (A-labels), and conversely. Now, it might be<br>
true that changes in IDNA, or from binary DNS labels to A-labels,<br>
require changes to that software in ways that are inconvenient.<br>
<br>
Moreover, as Pete Resnick said to me this week, part of what IDNA2008<br>
did was move some things from one side of an interface (mappings in<br>
the IDNA protocol) to another side. But that wasn't an accident: it's<br>
a backward-incompatible change because we'd concluded that the old<br>
approach was harmful.<br>
<br>
Yes, it's very inconvenient for our purposes that the DNS has the<br>
protocol, history, and operational practice that it does. But if the<br>
goal is actually to solve user problems, then this pain is in fact<br>
smaller than "reformat the Internet".<br></blockquote><div><br><br></div></div><br><div style="visibility: hidden; display: inline;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div><style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 13px;}</style>