Punycode & IMA/EAI
John C Klensin
klensin at jck.com
Thu May 22 15:33:08 CEST 2008
--On Thursday, 22 May, 2008 15:25 +0200 JFC Morfin
<jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> At 07:55 22/05/2008, John C Klensin wrote:
>> "user puts a string in, it gets converted to punycode form,
>> it gets converted back, user doesn't recognize result".
>> There are obvious and difficult tradeoffs here and IDNA2003
>> wasn't "wrong". It just appears that making the tradeoff the
>> other way and moving in that direction as quickly as possible
>> is, on balance and with experience, a better choice.
> Dear John,
> this is certainly the best and clearest begining of a user
> oriented explanation of IDNA2008's purpose to non-involved
> people. However, the "other way" and "that direction" are not
> enlightning enough. How would you phrase it to be more
> informative for them? I am sure this would help a lot of
> people to understand better. More over if Tina, ICANN, Felex
> and W3C, etc. used the same quote in their glossary, etc.
While I understand that you are focused elsewhere, my focus is
on getting the IDNA2008 work moving forward and hence on
communicating with those who are involved in that work. While
tutorial and explanatory material for other audiences would
almost certainly be useful, that material --beyond the material
in "Rationale" that is addressed to implementers, registries
(zone administrators), registrants, and users of domain names in
IETF protocols-- is not part of the WG charter at present. It
is also not clear whether Internet-Drafts and the RFC series are
the right home for material of that type.
Please do not turn this into a long debate -- even if your
suggestion is not off-topic and out of charter, such a debate
would, IMO, rapidly enter that area.
More information about the Idna-update