Q1 is mapping on lookup permanent or transitional?
alexander.mayrhofer at nic.at
Tue Apr 7 17:15:44 CEST 2009
Thanks for the feedback. Comments inline:
> Of course, user experience changes regularly, both between
> implementations and between versions of the same implementation.
> Users get confused and disturbed. Then they complain. And then
> they adapt.
Or they get frustrated, and blame the industry. Maybe i overestimate it,
I wish i could see statistics about this - but unfortunately
The current lowercasing / folding mechanics / stats would only be
to the User agents (hmm... Firefox URL filter list, maybe...?)
This would give a good insight - i'm fine if it turns out that nobody
really enters / clicks
On links that would fail under IDNA2008. (and i know i'm web-centric
> And, if any of
> Mac System 9.x -> Mac System X
> Windows 3.1 -> Windows 95
> Windows XP -> Windows Vista
> MS Office 2003 and earlier -> MS Office 2007
> Internet Explorer 6 -> Internet Explorer 7
True, but i think there's a significant difference whether a change is
the user's choice or it's forced down his throat.
(and yes, i still run Office 2003 and XP ... See below for
> can be used as examples (and I have many more, but they would
> probably be less familiar), they adapt a whole lot faster than
> "forever". What we need is a plausible reason for making the
> change other than "we did this to irritate you". The users
> don't necessarily have to believe that reason, but it has to be
Basically i agree. But there needs to be a *significant* advantage
For a user to happily adopt. And - being a bit egoistic here - i don't
see that advantage for the scripts that are relevant for us. We put
quite some effort into explaining to our registrars that the lack of
the "sharp s" was the best solution. They won't take the
IETF too serious if we come back and tell them it's now the
other way round ...
(and yes, i know it's not that easy)
More information about the Idna-update