Two-step mapping

[Wil Tan]

Shawn,
By that, you mean this wording will likely go away?
Thanks.

=wil

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com>wrote:

>  I believe the WG was moving in the direction of a consistent mapping.
>
> - Shawn
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [
> idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] on behalf of Wil Tan [
> wil at cloudregistry.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 25, 2009 10:21 PM
> *To:* IDNA update work
> *Subject:* Two-step mapping
>
>  The architectural principles section, in the 2nd last paragraph says:
>
>  The present version of IDNA (...) does not provide explicit mapping
> instructions. Instead, it assumes that the application (perhaps via an
> operating system input method) will do whatever mapping it requires to
> convert input into Unicode code points.  This has the advantage of giving
> flexibility to the application to choose a mapping that is suitable for its
> user given specific user requirements, and *avoids the two-step mapping*of the original protocol.
>
>
> In practice, if the application were to do any mapping, it is likely to
> perform a two-step mapping anyway:
>  1. As earlier paragraph suggests, the first step of getting the input as
> Unicode code points is likely the function of the input method or operating
> system event loop.
> 2. The application then performs its local mappings.
>
>  Perhaps it's better to say ".. the application to choose a mapping that
> is suitable for its user given specific user requirements, and perform it
> prior to using it in the registration or lookup steps of the protocol"? Or
> maybe I'm missing an important point.
>
>  Thanks,
> =wil
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090726/d096d927/attachment.htm