Casefolding Sigma (was: Re: IDNAbis Preprocessing Draft)
patrik at frobbit.se
Mon Jan 28 20:17:55 CET 2008
On 28 jan 2008, at 16.12, Vaggelis Segredakis wrote:
> Some people on this list propose this should change. Can you please
> your proposal on this issue and be as kind as to explain to us
> Greeks why
> the previous solution creates problems to your protocol?
In IDNA2003, U+03C2 was as you say mapped to U+03C3. This implies that
whenever someone entered U+03C2 (regardless of position in the label),
the U+03C2 was first mapped by Nameprep to U+03C3, and then U+03C3 was
registered in the DNS (after conversion to ASCII of course).
If we take this to IDNA200x, we see that already in IDNA2003, U+03C2
was not allowed in what we in IDNA200x call U-label.
My conclusion after seeing the discussions on this list is that we
should keep this requirement, that U+03C2 is not allowed in the DNS,
i.e. that it get the derived property value NEVER. It gets NEVER as
casefold(U+03C2) != U+03C2.
I looked through through presentation on DNAME and bundling, and I
thank you for the hard work you have put into this. I will keep the
presentation as one that one should read many times. I might come back
with questions later.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20080128/52c37cde/PGP.bin
More information about the Idna-update