Archaic scripts

Erik van der Poel erikv at
Fri May 9 17:40:41 CEST 2008

We are only trying to maintain or achieve interoperability. If we
cannot get the representatives of the bigger players to agree, then
it's hard to achieve interoperability, right? Sorry if some of my
wording is deemed arrogant -- I'm just an engineer with ideas for


On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:23 AM, LB <lbleriot at> wrote:
> 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.
> --
> LB
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list