Consensus Call Tranche 8 Results

John C Klensin klensin at jck.com
Fri Oct 31 13:51:06 CET 2008



--On Friday, 31 October, 2008 10:01 +0400 Patrik Fältström
<patrik at frobbit.se> wrote:

> 
> On 31 okt 2008, at 03.50, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
>> The choices are, therefore,
>> 
>> 	(i) Prohibit Final Sigma, just as, e.g., "A" and
>> 	Upper-case Sigma are prohibited.
>> 	
>> 	(ii) Permit Final Sigma as an ordinary character, with
>> 	no mapping, and leave its handling (permit or not,
>> 	variant or sunrise techniques or not) up to the relevant
>> 	registry/zone.
>> 	
>> 	(iii) Fundamentally change the IDNA2008 model.
>> 
>> I do believe that, whatever decisions are made about Final
>> Sigma, Eszett, or others, that the third option is desirable.
> 
> I strongly believe you forgot a negation at the end of the
> last sentence.

You are correct.  It should have read "...third option is not
desirable".  I apologize.
> 
> If not, let me just say I personally am strongly against (iii).
> 
> That said, as I have stated before I think having a document
> that document suggested mappings for various applications and
> contexts is something that could be good. That is though *NOT*
> (let me emphasize that) the same as (iii).

I am less sure that suggesting mappings at all is a good idea
than I was some months ago.   I am coming to believe that this
is one of the situation in which, in the long run, telling the
users the truth and having them get use to it may be the better
idea.  But we agree that should be a separate topic.

    john



More information about the Idna-update mailing list