Changing the xn-- prefix
vint at google.com
Thu Mar 20 14:55:47 CET 2008
i would support option 1 as formulated below although I sincerely
hope that the documents as they stand support a conclusion that the
prefix need not be altered.
On Mar 20, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Paul Hoffman <phoffman at imc.org> writes:
>> Given that this is a charter issue, not a post-charter issue, it
>> be good to get some closure here. Is anyone supporting changing the
>> xn-- prefix other than Simon?
> I never said that I support changing the xn-- prefix. I believe it
> would be quite unfortunate if we change the prefix.
> However, I believe that ruling out changing the prefix in the WG
> is premature. How high the costs of changing the prefix will be
> on the costs of changing other things in IDNA in backwards
> ways, such as the encoding of ß.
> Since the WG is empowered to make backwards incompatible changes, I
> believe the WG should be equally empowered to consider whether
> the prefix yield lower overall deployment costs.
> I believe that the WG charter should say that the WG is:
> 1) able to consider any backwards incompatible change, including
> the ß
> character and changing the prefix.
> 2) not able to consider backwards incompatible changes at all, i.e.,
> that every string valid under IDNA2003 should remain valid and
> to the same value.
> Considering that we are still discussing which changes is a good
> idea or
> not, I think option 1) gives the WG better instruments to produce a
> technically optimal solution given all constraints.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update