Stop me if I've misunderstood...

[Shawn Steele]

> - Until about a month ago, the WG documents never had anything about
> IDNA2003-style mapping. So, this is not a case of them ending up on
> the floor, it's a case of us looking at them for the first time.

And I think it has definitely improved :)  Just not enough :(

> I am not an implementer, so I cannot answer this at all.

>>>>The browser manufacturers would, I can fairly confidently state, be
>>>>very keen to make this interoperable.

>>>The WG would be keen for the browser vendors to define what
>>>"interoperable" means here. Which two parties are interoperating?

>>I had a go at defining this more precisely, but then I saw Shawn's excellent message.

> We disagree. His laundry list did not define interoperable, it was a (mostly reasonable)
> list of desires, plus a promise to come back later.

I promised I'd make a more detailed requirements list "if requested."  I could've been clearer :)

        "If you want more formal requirements you'll have to give me a few days
        to run it by the others, this is sort of off the cuff"

In order to prevent misunderstandings, if the working group leadership feels there's consensus that requirements from vendors are desirable, I'd like that request to be clearly made by the WG leadership of ALL interested vendors, not just us.  I'm also concerned that gathering more formal requirements will delay the process :(

> If you want to make a run at a concise definition, that would be still be most
> appreciated, at least by me.

Yes, I approached it more of a list of the characteristics of an interoperable environment, not by a concise definition.  Mark also made me realize I'm often speaking from the browser, not registry, perspective.  My 2nd attempt (deleted) was also probably not what you're looking for, so I'll have to think a bit.

> Yes. Some argue that if the circumstance is "mandatory, fixed, and in the
> protocol", then it is undesirable.

I believe we need to recognize that there are two environments that need supported.  Mark said used "registrar" for one, but I think that perhaps "strict" and "permissive" might be more useful.  I can imagine that some applications (not web browser type) might want a "strict" approach, whereas others need mapping.  I agree with Mark that browsers MUST map, otherwise you have chaos, however I'm not sure I want to say "X, Y & Z" must map and "A, B & C" must not map.  I think saying that some applications SHOULD map is sufficient.

For example: If I make a contact in an address book (or friends list or whatever) with a "web page" field, then that field MUST be mapped to be useful.  But I can't just say "address books" MUST map because I probably expect the field to keep what I typed, even if it's a broken link.  So address books also SHOULD NOT map.  I could enumerate when address books should and should not map, but I really don't think we want to go there.  I would much rather assume that address book developers will be able to figure out what's right.  We could point out the possibilities so the developer doesn't overlook them, but we don't need to say "Do it this way."  None of us are experts in all the application types.

- Shawn