lisa.dusseault at gmail.com
Wed Apr 8 01:59:03 CEST 2009
I'm not certain a new term needs to be introduced. If we're talking
about a string that is invalid as a label, giving it that term seems
to legitimize it. If we're talking about a string that may or may not
be valid, that's just "a string"
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:17 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to put notes together for updates to the documents,
> even though I don't intend to open them up until Vint makes some
> statements about consensus.
> I believe that we have agreement that, if the documents are to
> discuss mapping at all, an additional term that has been
> described as an "M-label" would be useful. However, in sorting
> through my notes, I believe I've seen two different definitions,
> "An M-label is a string that becomes a U-label after
> mapping but it not, itself, a U-label. In more recent
> terminology, if a U-label is a canonical form, the
> M-label is a non-canonical form of the same thing. The
> categories of M-label and U-label are disjoint."
> (Patrik and others)
> "An M-label is a string that can be mapped into a
> [valid] U-label. It may be a U-label, since those
> trivially map into themselves. The category of U-label
> is a proper subset of the category of M-label." (Mark
> and others).
> Which one of these fits the text better depends on how the text
> is written -- it could be done either way as far as Definitions
> and Protocol are concerned, although I think the first
> definition might work better for Tables.
> I think it would be a really bad (and very confusing) to end up
> with M-label(1) and M-label(2) even if different terms are used,
> so the WG will need to decide.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update