Comments on idnabis-rationale-01

Cary Karp ck at
Thu Jul 24 18:51:16 CEST 2008

Quoting John:

> Again, I would welcome a different term, although I would also
> welcome comments from others, especially Tina and Cary, as to
> whether "LDH-label" has become sufficiently entrenched using the
> IDNA200X/IDNA2008 definition, that trying to retire it would
> create excessive confusion.

Wherever I've discussed it, people appear either to be quite eager to adopt the A/U/LDH-label terminology, or retain whatever nomenclature they had previously applied. Most noteworthy in the present context is the close to rigorous use of the former among the gTLD registries and in their dialog with browser developers. In other contexts, there are varying degrees of interest in cultivating a uniform descriptive framework, but I've never heard any complaint about the logical disjunction between A and LDH labels.

> Perhaps we could try "traditional label"?

Unless the term "traditional" means something quite clear to the technical community, I would strongly suggest that it not be woven into the present narrative. Traditions change.

Quoting Frank, quoting John:

> <> apparently 
> also uses the obvious definition of "LDH label".  

That text was drafted well before the present discussion was initiated and was clearly bound to a specific policy context. Absent a normative reference, it defined its own terms and invoking them here is simply not appropriate.
> > I suggest that your repeated efforts to turn A-label
> > back into a subset of LDH-label are part of what is
> > causing the confusion you cite.
> I'm not confused about "xn--" being LDH, and punycode
> output being LDH.  But I'm confused why you claim that
> they're something else, because they obviously are LDH.

I agree with John that this invocation of confusion is probably doing more to obscure the intended meaning than it is to clarify it.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list