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

Erik van der Poel erikv at
Tue Dec 18 00:36:50 CET 2007

I see. This sounds like the mappings that are performed in the UI (as
opposed to the mappings that the browsers perform for <a href="...">
and <img src="...">). I do see the need for interoperability at the UI
level too. So we might have three different levels in the documents:

(1) IDNA200X protocol spec (no mappings)
(2) mapping spec (where user is not editing the host name;
language-independent; e.g. HTML in search engines)
(3) UI recommendations (where user is editing the host name;
potentially language-dependent; e.g. user typing host name into

It would be nice if we only had one spec at level (1), and only one
spec at level (2).

We might have multiple documents at level (3), for various languages, apps, etc.


On Dec 17, 2007 3:02 PM, Patrik Fältström <patrik at> wrote:
> On 17 dec 2007, at 17.30, Erik van der Poel wrote:
> > Would you please confirm whether you are talking about registration or
> > resolution here?
> I have got requests from browser programmers whether it is possible
> for them to know what equivalences the registries have used at time of
> registration. So that the browser when accepting written input (on a
> keyboard) can do similar mappings etc that is happening at time of
> registration. Context dependent mapping. If nothing else to possibly
> minimize phishing etc while still ensuring no false positives.
> I.e more and more requests I have got regarding mapping at time of
> lookup is to know how to ensure the mapping at resolution is the same/
> similar as mapping at time of registration.
>     Patrik

More information about the Idna-update mailing list