High-level changes from IDNA2003 in the "current work"

Paul Hoffman phoffman at imc.org
Fri Mar 7 00:32:59 CET 2008

At 3:17 PM -0800 3/6/08, Mark Davis wrote:
>Seems a fair summary. I'd merge f and g to say:
>Restrict bidi domain names so that their display is not surprising, 
>whether they be isolated or be embedded in a paragraph of text.

They are separate in draft in the list of justifications, so I think 
it is not good to merge them. In the bidi restrictions themselves, I 
think that some are for (f) and some are for (g). Thus, I think it's 
better to keep them separate in this list too.

>One thing: I think e, f, and g were part of the original intent of 
>the IDNA2003 bidi restrictions -- it's just that the actual rules 
>didn't encompass that intent correctly -- nostra culpa. Much more 
>work has been done in refining the proposed bidi restrictions in the 
>new bidi document to make them actually satisfy that original 
>intent, both in terms of allowing labels that shouldn't have been 
>disallowed, and disallowing labels that should not have been allowed.

Our "original" intent, yes. We abandoned them fairly quickly when we 
couldn't find a sensible way of doing them. I'm glad that the topic 
is re-opened because they are laudable goals; we now need to see if 
we can get there.

I don't think (e) was even considered since it would have been easy 
to fix the first time around.

More information about the Idna-update mailing list