mappings-01

Mark Davis ⌛ mark at macchiato.com
Sun Jul 5 21:13:43 CEST 2009


Yes, thanks for the correction.

Mark


On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:50, Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se>wrote:

>
> Den 2009-07-05 20.41, skrev "Mark Davis" <mark at macchiato.com>:
>
> What I'm saying is that *no* mapping is better than an optional mapping.
> That is, there are three options people have mentioned:
>
> A. mapping required by IDNA protocol
> B. no mapping as part of IDNA docs
> C. optional, UI-only mapping in IDNA docs
>
> I think that C is far worse than B. So rather than going down the C route,
> I'd rather go back to John's original formulation (B).
>
>
> Both A and C are at least predictable. B is a muddle - it does not advance
> interoperability; it simply makes it harder to predict what implementations
> are going to do, since some will do it and some won't.
>
>
> I guess you meant to write "Both A and B are at least predictable. C is a
> muddle..."
>
>                 /kent k
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090705/004a278e/attachment.htm 


More information about the Idna-update mailing list