Comments on idnabis-rationale-01
Eric Brunner-Williams
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Fri Jul 25 02:37:08 CEST 2008
Data label taxonomy:
binary (rfc2673) [any bit-boundary]
text (none) [zero or more octets]
ascii (none) [zero or more octets, encoding]
ldh (rfc1035) [obvious subset]
a-label (idnabis) [xn-- prefix, plus stuff]
z-labels (none) [anything with an "--", not preceeded by
"xn", not ^anchored, to suggest an answer to Frank's question]
Eric
Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Tina Dam wrote:
>
>
>> I would be ok with a different term as well, but I don't
>> have any good ideas.
>>
>
> The funny thing is that we all like LDH-label as intuitively
> clear, and then don't agree on the same definition. Here's
> some simplified ASCII art:
>
> +--------------------------------+
> | DNS labels (octets) |
> | |
> | +------------------------------+
> | | LDH labels (LDH) |
> | | |
> | | +----------------------------+ +----------+
> | | | A-labels (IDNAbis valid) | <=> | U-labels |
> | | +----------------------------+ +----------+
> | | |
> | +------------------------------+
> | |
> +--------------------------------+
>
> What I see is "A-labels are a proper subset of LDH-labels,
> as specified in IDNAbis. LDH-labels are a proper subset
> of DNS labels, as specified in RFC 1123" (or similar).
>
> What John sees is "A-labels are one thing, and LDH-labels
> are the DNS labels consisting of LDH which are no A-labels,
> as specified in IDNAbis".
>
> IOW John has no name for the union of A-label and LDH-label
> in his terminology (the middle box in the ASCII art).
>
> I've no term for those LDH-labels which are no A-labels in
> my terminology (the middle box excluding the innermost box).
>
> Frank
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list