Additional thoughts on TRANSITIONAL ( Which level of label )
Alireza Saleh
saleh at nic.ir
Sat Dec 5 08:25:37 CET 2009
I don't understand what the protocol is trying to solve. If this is the
RFC about the policies that zone-operators should think of (like
mapping) then I think we can revise all the documents with this new
approach because I suppose that IDNAbis is a working-group to fix
issues across all labels within a domain-name and not only TLDs or SLDs
that are directly under the control of zone operators.
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On 2009-12-04, at 17:41, Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> TRANSITIONAL character in the domain.
>>
>> I agree that in some models, an error is better than going to an
>> indeterminate destination. But only in some models. To the user,
>> upgrading their browser and suddenly having links with ß in domains
>> fail where it succeeded the day before, does not seem like a real up
>> grade.
>>
>
> This is precisely the problem my admittedly kludgey suggestion is
> supposed to solve. If the registry (zone operator) has a policy to map
> as desired, then the upgrade works as hoped anyway. We could even
> include a mechanism to say "never had any idna2003" so that people who
> have waited for something better get the new benefits as soon as new
> browsers are deployed. (But the idea is still a pig, & I'm not
> defending it hard.)
>
> A
>
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list