The real issue: interopability, and a proposal (Was: Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma)

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at
Tue Dec 1 12:31:52 CET 2009

On 2009/12/01 18:59, Alexander Mayrhofer wrote:

> I think it's not very likely that all vendors agree on a single mapping - particularly with the WG scope of not dealing with a mapping as part of the protocol. However, i'd like to propose the following:
> - add text to Section 5 of idnabis-protocol that says
>          "characters that are PVALID MUST NOT be subject to mappings".

I like this idea. It seems to capture something that was essentially 
obvious to me, but apparently not to some others. Essentially, it says 
"don't mess around with valid domain names".

> Or (more focused)
>          "characters that are listed as Exceptions (F) in Section 2.6
>           of [tables] MUST NOT be subject to mappings"

This would essentially say that you *can* map anything else, starting 
with 'a', which I think would definitely be the wrong message, and not 
what anybody would intend.

> I'm not sure whether that contradicts the "local matters" part in Section 5.1

This is about registration, but we are mainly concerned about lookup now.

 > (and i'm pretty sure it creates problems elsewhere),

What kinds of problems would that be?

> but i think it
 > solves the "permanent interopability" problem outlined above.
 > That means that "ß" stops working during the transition period,

Which is more or less where we are now.

 > but also means that it can be treated as an independent character
 > *after* the transition - bundling is not required, Mr Weiss
 > and Mr Weiß can both have their distinct domain names, etc..

Yes indeed.

Regards,    Martin.

#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#   mailto:duerst at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list