Additional thoughts on TRANSITIONAL

Shawn Steele Shawn.Steele at
Fri Dec 4 20:26:30 CET 2009

Just sent, but I think transitional that breaks current IDNA2003 sites that work is really bad.  I also think anything that builds-in a delay of 5-10 years to get correct language support is also really bad.


From: Erik van der Poel [erikv at]
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 11:11 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan; Shawn Steele; Gervase Markham
Cc: idna-update at
Subject: Re: Additional thoughts on TRANSITIONAL

Yes, I'm hoping that we are willing to explore different ways out of
this mess. We currently have two different proposals for IDNA:

In particular, I'd like to hear from Microsoft and Firefox folks, on
their thoughts regarding the TRANSITIONAL ideas.


On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 09:16:02AM -0800, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>> some point in the future, when there is consensus that it is the right
>> time (and the right thing to do).
> Perhaps I'm am growing cynical with age, but given the difficulty of
> converging now, I have doubts about the chances of converging in the
> future, when there is even more deployed stuff depending on existing
> behaviour.  Still, it might work, and I'm by no means saying no.  Any
> route out of this twisty little maze of arguments, all repeated, is
> one I'm willing to explore.
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list