mappings-01

[Patrik Fältström]

Hmm....

I have argued for a "careful" use of mappings.

I am of the definite view that IF mapping is used, THEN it is good if  
it is done in a consistent way (so that applications do not "invent"  
mappings).

That said, I think I also have said in some discussions that IETF have  
not standardized on keyboard layout, speech to text mappings, input  
mechanisms etc, and that ONE view might be that a mapping as close to  
the application I argue for can be viewed as an extended input  
mechanism (like spelling correction). Some browsers already today add  
".COM" if one enter something in a browser without any periods...is  
that part of "mapping"?

Mumble...this *is* complicated.

And, all of that said, I think the text that we have sort of converged  
on in this discussion is pretty good.

    Patrik

On 5 jul 2009, at 21.13, Mark Davis ⌛ wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

-------------- 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/a2ab0192/attachment.pgp