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