AW: Q2: What mapping function should be used in a revised IDNA2008specification?

Georg Ochsner g.ochsner at
Wed Apr 8 19:05:58 CEST 2009

Maybe the WG is spending too much of its energy and time on arguing within
itself, rather than going out and convince others... If the WG decides on
improvements and adjustments that leave much choice and freedom to the
end-users they will adopt and like it. The registrants are the main clients
of IDN domains, hence they are the main clients of this WG.


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: idna-update-bounces at [mailto:idna-update-
> bounces at] Im Auftrag von Erik van der Poel
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. April 2009 16:07
> An: Alexander Mayrhofer
> Cc: Georg Ochsner; Harald Alvestrand; John C Klensin; idna-
> update at; "Martin J. Dürst"; Vint Cerf
> Betreff: Re: Q2: What mapping function should be used in a revised
> IDNA2008specification?
> The Eszett issue is not just a matter of registries putting in a few
> months worth of work. We would also need to convince client
> implementers to stop mapping Eszett to ss. Although one could argue
> that the number of labels containing Eszett in stored files and
> exchanged text is low (compared to the number of words in plain text
> that contain Eszett), we now have quite a lot of installed clients
> that perform IDNA2003 mappings out there. I myself am only involved in
> a client (Google crawler) that holds little sway in this matter. There
> are a number of other clients that hold much more sway, and I am
> frustrated about the lack of consensus among those implementers and
> other members of this WG.
> Another example of a client developer that is inhibiting progress is
> Firefox, with its refusal to display Unicode labels under certain
> large TLDs such as .com. We really need to resolve this issue too,
> otherwise IDNA is not really going to spread.
> Both of these issues have been discussed to death, and yet the client
> implementers are not convinced. Sorry if I come across as pessimistic.
> Erik
> >> That's a good example. They noticed that for them it was
> >> wrong not to have the second level domains available like in
> >> many other countries and made up their mind how to get out of
> >> it without unsettling the registrants or users. That's how
> >> change can be managed! I am sure what the Mexican registry
> >> can do, is no problem for the German and Austrian registry neither.
> >
> > I'm not saying it's not possible. We have done transitions a few
> > times, and assisted other registries in doing so as well. It's just
> > always a few months worth of work...
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list