mappings-01
Patrik Fältström
patrik at frobbit.se
Sun Jul 5 22:20:02 CEST 2009
On 4 jul 2009, at 17.10, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> It is clearly a good idea because it will prevent user surprise
I am prepared on giving a counter argument.
With mapping, people that use the unicode version of the string do not
know whether they talk about a string that is mapped to something, or
not. Because of this, they are surprised if they talk about the string
that is mapped, and then when the xn-- version is converted back to
Unicode, they say "this was not what I wanted".
It must be extremely clear that the string that is mapped to a U-label
is an exceptional case that some applications in some cases, after
clearly instructing the user the string is mapped, might be accepted
as input as an IDN.
IDNA2008 must in a much much much better way than IDNA2003 explain why
it is so extremely important that the strings that can be converted to
an A-label and back (without changes) is what is an IDN.
Because of this need for an 1:1 mapping, mapping is an exception that
can help some applications in some cases to make them more friendly
for users.
Patrik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090705/ad6654fe/attachment.pgp
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list