Proposed Charter for the IDNAbis Working Group

Leslie Daigle leslie at
Fri Mar 28 23:09:07 CET 2008


I may well be missing something key in your & John's points, but what I 
hear is:

You are disagreeing with John's premise of the need to provide strict 
scoping of allowed symbols in IDNs, and are suggesting that there is no 
need to exclude particular symbols, because they are so impractical to use 
as to be unlikely to appear in registered domain names.

The difference I see is in the protocols using, and software manipulating 
(for purposes other than user presentation) these labels:  those 
protocols/that software must be built to handle the universe of allowable 
symbols, and deal with the potential impacts (for matching) across that 
universe.  In that light, I'm not understanding how the argument that 
certain symbols are unlikely to be registered is really that manageable.

But, perhaps I missed your point?


--On March 28, 2008 2:27:34 PM +0900 Martin Duerst <duerst at> 

> At 21:35 08/03/27, Gervase Markham wrote:
>> Martin Duerst wrote:
>>> This is different from some very specific, small subset of symbols
>>> that may be highly similar to e.g. dot or hyphen or so, which indeed
>>> can create problems.
>> Are you willing to evaluate all the non-letter characters for
>> confusability and come up with an exceptions list of banned characters,
>> then? :-)
> I wasn't arguing for or against disallowing all symbols, I was
> mainly making the point that for most symbols, it doesn't matter.
> In terms of charter, and for the resulting spec, that would mean
> that for most symbols, whether they are in or out in the end isn't
> a high priority issue.
> Regards,    Martin.
># -#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
># -#-#       mailto:duerst at
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list