IDNAbis Goals

Mark Davis markdavis at
Mon Nov 27 19:54:48 CET 2006

The primary reason for including this table is because of concerns from
people on the IETF side. The UTC doesn't really have a strong position
either way.

I agree with you that it would introduce a moderate complication. I say
"moderate" because it is not trivial to detect those cases, but -- in
comparison with Punycode! -- also not hugely complicated either.


On 11/27/06, Paul Hoffman <phoffman at> wrote:
> At 9:53 AM -0800 11/27/06, Mark Davis wrote:
> >One other restriction that I forgot.
> >
> >B4. Disallow problematic sequences for normalization
> >
> >These are listed
> ><>
> >This is a relatively uncontroversial change, even as a hard
> >restriction, since the sequences are degenerate -- not meaningful in
> >any language.
> It is premature to call this "uncontroversial", given that many of us
> have never seen it before.
> Although the change seems useful, it also looks onerous to put in a
> standard and expect it to be followed reasonably well. One of the
> efforts for IDNAbis was simplification; this is far from simple.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list