Standards and localization (was Dot-mapping)
newcat at icu.ac.kr
Thu Dec 13 03:05:30 CET 2007
John C Klensin wrote:
> depend on anything tricky. I think what is needed here is not
> a part of the IDNA standard but a separate document that says,
> If you are an implementer of something that calls a
> resolver and are in your right mind, you will accept
> anything plausible, including these explicit
> recommendations (the IDNA2003 list goes here), as a dot,
> nothing that they are all prohibited (as punctuation) in
> IDN labels. you will do case mapping for any script for
> which that is defined (with a pointer to the Unicode
> mapping table), and so forth. You will immediately map
> those to the target characters and make whatever
> decisions seem sensible to you about warning the user
> about what you have done (such decisions might range
> from silence to 'do you want me to do this' messages).
> And any registry in its right mind (including zones deep
> in the tree) should accept only those strings for
> registration that can be reversed-mapped from A-labels
> back to the U-labels, i.e., with no mappings from one
> character to another at all.
> I don't know what is in "and so forth", but I imagine that other
> cases will be discovered.
Simplified <-> Traditional Chinese character equivalence/mapping (as
exemplified in RFC3743) could be one of those "and so forth".
More information about the Idna-update