Shawn Steele Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Wed Dec 2 20:17:41 CET 2009

I guess one thing that bothers me about "those 4 characters" is that most of the "problems" with making them PVALID can be fixed by bundling.  In fact we've heard .de and .at say they want to bundle Eszett.

Bundling is obviously interesting for any back-compat/transition.  We also know why bundling is interesting for Eszett.

It's maybe also interesting for Final Sigma in case something's lower cased.  Thinking of a CamelCased word.  Someone also mentioned that there are other shortcuts people make typing Greek, which could cause additional bundling.

For ZWJ/ZWNJ bundling might be less interesting, except for compatibility?  I don't know enough about the languages except that these are required for display.

The one thing that's consistent with a bundling approach is that the "bundling" effectively causes an effect like mapping.  The difference is that the bundler has some control over the priority of the names in the bundle (eg: they can prefer a display form, although user entry or something else might not let them have complete control of display.)

So if that's how the problem will be solved, is there a better way to state it?  Or should bundling in these cases just be a BCP?


More information about the Idna-update mailing list