Standards and localization (was Dot-mapping)

[Patrik Fältström]

Of course anyone can write suggestions and BCPs on how to implement  
mappings etc for applications. Documents that talk about what happens  
if an end user is entering this or that, in this or that locale, in  
this or that protocol.

But we have to remember that already IDNA2003 did very explicitly  
define what codepoints where ok to register in the DNS, and that is  
what we are defining in IDNA200x. I am not happy with people stating  
that thousands and thousands of codepoints are ok in IDNA2003, but not  
in IDNA200x, because that statement take for granted that the  
applications will not accept when implementing IDNA200x other  
codepoints that what is allowed in a U-label. And I do not think,  
given the input and work from browser vendors, those two sets will be  
the same.

As John has explained many times, to get a strict, working IDNA200x  
standard, we have to be very very strict on what can end up in DNS,  
and then leave other things as out of scope. That does not say other  
people can not write other documents about it. We already have tons of  
text written on mappings etc for registries based on locale information.

    Patrik