idna-bis and Eszett
Erik van der Poel
erikv at google.com
Wed Nov 28 18:33:14 CET 2007
Refactoring the specs and/or making them more modular sounds
reasonable to me. It's a bit ironic that Patrik said that the group
tried hard for the first time to have all of the pieces in sync, when,
clearly, one of the pieces (the mapping) is missing. :-)
However, moving the case mapping and normalization to the IRI spec
seems a bit problematic if there may be other specs that need to refer
to the mapping spec but don't need IRIs. What do the email folks
intend to do with IDNs?
On Nov 28, 2007 5:33 AM, Marcos Sanz/Denic <sanz at denic.de> wrote:
> > (4) The larger registry operators who are handling IDNs are
> > increasingly refusing to accept registrations in raw form,
> > permitting only the ACE form or ToUnicode(ToASCII(string)) to be
> > registered.
> It would be interesting to know which are those operators you are talking
> about. As a matter of fact, DENIC's registration interface accepts only
> Nameprep(domain-name). But FWIW I've already seen advertisements with an
> eszett in the domain name; too bad I didn't have my camera with me.
> I want to be humble, though: The policy of a registry is only a small
> piece in the puzzle, since we only have control of registrable second
> level domain labels. As I wrote to this list back in December last year:
> 'Gentlemen, if the work of this group would render invalid some existing
> IDN (never mind if "parked" or "functioning" or at second or eighth
> level), I think it's in scope to determine a mechanim for
> support/migration of those.' (by "existing" I meant "existing out there"
> and not only "existing in my repository".)
> Incidentally, your answer back then was:
> "The purpose of IDNs is in use and usability, not in what can be
> registered, or has been registered, or that might be registered."
> So according to yourself, this point 4) is irrelevant.
> > (7) It appears that the standard orthographic rules about
> > whether it is appropriate or desirable to replace Eszett with
> > "ss" vary among German-speaking countries, so there is less
> > guidance from common practice than might appear at first glance.
> And I personally think this is completely orthogonal to the issue at
> Best regards,
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update