Mapping other Digits to 0-9

Andrew Sullivan ajs at shinkuro.com
Mon Dec 8 16:02:10 CET 2008


On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 04:27:09PM +0900, Martin Duerst wrote:
> input conversions. For input conversions, the appopriate solution,
> if any, is to add mapping to the protocol, but we (or whoever)
> decided earlier on that mapping wouldn't be part of the protocol.

My impression of why we decided to take mapping out of the protocol,
however, is that mapping is basically about localization.  Since it is
impossible to do localization at a global level, it should not be done
at the protocol level but should instead be handled as close to the
end as possible.  At least, that's my impression of the reasoning
behind the change.

Now, one important premise in favour of the contextual rule is, I
think, that this digit case is a really unusual one.  If we accept
that this is a very unusual case, and therefore that we're willing to
put warts on the protocol that we otherwise aren't willing to add (all
the while chanting, "No precedent, no precedent," I guess) then is
this a case where we ought to add mapping to the protocol even though
we otherwise have a principle that no mapping is allowed/required?  (I
have no opinion about this at the moment.  I'm just asking.)

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list