idna folding (was Re: idna-bis and '?')

Patrik Fältström patrik at
Mon Dec 17 00:50:03 CET 2007

On 17 dec 2007, at 00.09, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> --On 16. desember 2007 15:07 -0800 Erik van der Poel  
> <erikv at> wrote:
>> To me, this sounds as though one should not be mapped to the other at
>> registration time, so I don't understand why people would be
>> interested in treating them as the same codepoint at registration
>> time.
> We must take care with terms here.... I believe both Torbjørn and  
> Torbjörn would be interested in a regime where registering  
> "torbjø" would not be allowed if "torbjö" was already  
> registered by someone else. But that's bundling, not mapping. And  
> the "default member" of the bundle (the one that actually goes into  
> the zonefile) would be different in Norway and Sweden.
> (btw, .no doesn't support bundling at this time. I don't believe .se  
> does either.)

Correct, .SE does not.

What everyone wants is that torbjø and torbjö and possibly  
torbjö and torbjø end up at the same resource in as few  
hoops to jump through as possible. Specifically it would be  
"interesting" if torbjö and torbjø end up having different  
domain name holders, because I have no idea what the dispute  
resolution process would say about it.

Unicode say ö and ø are different, but that is definitely not what  
people in Norway or Sweden (or Denmark for that matter) think.

On the other hand, I think people in Germany might think o and ö is  
the same (correct me if I am wrong here), something definitely not the  
case in Sweden. Here o and ö are different characters. ö is not o with  


More information about the Idna-update mailing list