Mapping (was: Issues lists and the "preprocessing" topic)

[JFC Morfin]

John,
the idea is to make the document as clear and convenient as possible 
to the developer, the operator and the translator. It should 
therefore explain what IDN200X is and indicate how it supports the 
IDN2003's left-over. IMHO _every_ rationale is to be kept in a 
separate document.
jfc

At 00:18 23/08/2008, John C Klensin wrote:



>--On Wednesday, 20 August, 2008 09:55 -0700 Erik van der Poel
><erikv at google.com> wrote:
>
> > The current IDNA spec is IDNA2003, and it includes the default
> > pre-processing steps. Now, IDNA200X is removing (the details
> > of) the pre-processing steps, so it ought to explain this
> > major difference between IDNA2003 and 200X. This explanation
> > can mention the difference between the "default"
> > pre-processing (as seen in IDNA2003 and HTML today) and the
> > per-locale UI pre-processing such as Turkish dotted/dotless
> > uppercase 'i'. If the WG consensus is to leave out any mention
> > of UI pre-processing, that is fine, but I think it is quite
> > important that IDNA200X explain that the default
> > pre-processing of IDNA2003 has been removed.
>
>I agree and you didn't even need to twist my arm.
>
>But I have a problem on which I need advice (and, ideally,
>specific text or instructions) from the WG.   It appears to me
>that there are three ways to address the differences between
>IDNA2003 and IDNA2008, of which this one and the exclusion of
>non-letter/ non-digit characters may be the ones with the
>largest impact.
>
>         (1) We explain what IDNA2008 does and ignore IDNA2003
>         and the differences entirely.
>
>         (2) We explain what IDNA2008 does and note that it is
>         different but don't explain why.
>
>         (3) We explain the issues with mapping and why we
>         decided to go from a "map whenever possible so as to
>         include most Unicode characters somehow" logic to a
>         "don't map so as to make behavior more understandable
>         and U-labels and A-labels convertible to each other
>         without information loss" logic.
>
>Rationale and its predecessors started with (3).  I was told to
>tear out the text that seemed critical of IDNA2003, with one key
>comment being that type of justification may have been important
>in getting where we are but that it is no longer important now
>that the WG is chartered, etc.   So we are now roughly at (2)
>with some of the WG membership still believing that we should be
>at (1), i.e., with all explanatory material discarded.
>
>I'm happy to go back toward (3) --especially since I've never
>been convinced that removing those explanations was wise-- but I
>have two problems.  I don't know how to say "this is different
>from IDNA2003 because..." without saying things about the
>IDNA2003 strategy that some will construe as critical and
>negative.  Others might be able to do better.   Or it is
>possible that what we really need to do is to strengthen (2)
>without making a "why this is different" comparison.   I've
>already done a bit of the latter and hope that I can finish up
>the pending drafts and get them posted this weekend (this last
>week or so have been terrors for reasons unrelated to IDNA).
>But I don't know if the new text will be adequate; if it is not,
>I would really appreciate specific suggestions.
>
>And, at some stage, I think we need Vint to see if he can state
>a formal consensus call on whether we want "why this is
>different" explanations even if those explanations could be
>interpreted as critical of IDNA2003.
>
>     john
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update