Archaic scripts

LB lbleriot at
Fri May 9 13:23:58 CEST 2008

do I risk a question? Who decides? It is the IETF or are the
manufacturers? I do not understand qu'IE7 fails to comply with the
RFCs. It seems that Firefox also has its own policy. This resembles
the Minitel during 1980. To know the protocol you must disassemble the
code. Why would I not have the right to use domain names encrypted in
cuneiform? Why would I not have the right to create my own writing? I
do not want to be offensive, but as a non-Anglo-Saxon and non-engineer
I begin to resent what some call the "Global Arrogance": is this
really what you want? Why not proceed methodically and normally. That
is to say: define the service to be provided, specifications, levels
of operating conditions (ROM, browsers, applications), obligations of
interoperability, long terms development prospects, work on modeling
(object system , exotèem). What you define is an artifact to be
central to life in the world with a life span of several centuries.
This is not a negotiation between Google, Micorosoft and Firefox.

I am puzzled.

2008/5/9 Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at>:
> Agreed pretty much.  Sorry I haven't followed the recommendations for the
> casing, etc. rules, however disambiguating the  mapping and
> Unicode<->Punycode rules from the disallowed set would "solve" (some of) the
> problems that cause IE7 to not look up unassigned characters.
> -          Shawn

More information about the Idna-update mailing list