Standards and localization (was Dot-mapping)

Gervase Markham gerv at
Tue Dec 11 17:59:55 CET 2007

Erik van der Poel wrote:
> Maybe I should not have focussed on the spoofing examples in my
> previous email. This is not only a security issue. It is an
> interoperability issue too. We have a number of possibilities for
> IDNA200X:
> (1) make the mappings (dots, case, nfkc) part of the protocol
> (2) make them a normative reference
> (3) make them an informative reference
> (4) don't reference them at all

Although surely it's possible to make this decision differently for the 
case of dots and for everything else?

As John says, dot is special, because it's the delimiter.

Could IDNA200x specify a list of dot-like codepoints which MUST be 
mapped to dot, but not say anything about case and so on?

I must confess that my attention to IDN topics has wandered of late, so 
in diving back in, I want to issue a pre-emptive apology if I suggest 
something which has already been rejected for good reason.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list