NFKC and dots

Martin Duerst duerst at
Mon Mar 3 08:26:32 CET 2008

I think that some aspects of this may be related to HTML.
But domain names are used much more widely than HTML, and
it would be a bad idea to have HTML behave differently from
other, similar formats. As far as IDNA2003 did lead to
unintuitive or clearly underspecified behavior for
generic (from an IDN viewpoint) "higher-level protocols",
it should be fixed and the fix documented in IDNAbis.
These considerations are crossing label boundaries, but
then so do bidi considerations. Although wherever
possible, we should limit IDN work to single-label
considerations, cross-label issues are sometimes

Regards,    Martin.

At 15:42 08/03/03, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>"Erik van der Poel" <erikv at> writes:
>> Hi Shawn,
>> Thanks for the info. After I sent that email, I discussed it with some
>> of the ICU folks, and they also said that one way to do this would be
>> to perform NFKC on the entire domain name before splitting it into
>> labels. Mark's pre-processing draft says something similar:
>> Actually, I've been meaning to gather folks who are interested in HTML
>> and IDNA so that we can discuss this pre-processing spec. However, I
>> do not want to distract the nascent working group, which probably
>> wants to focus on the on-the-wire specs (IDNA200X, 4 drafts: issues,
>> protocol, tables and bidi).
>For what it's worth, I'm interested in seeing the work-around
>documented.  Old IDNA behaviour is unintuitive here.
>Idna-update mailing list
>Idna-update at

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#       mailto:duerst at     

More information about the Idna-update mailing list