The Two Lookups Approach (was Re: Parsing the issuesand finding a middle ground -- another attempt)

Patrik Fältström patrik at
Sat Mar 7 15:24:37 CET 2009

Regardless of in what direction this is going, I want personally this  
to very clearly be something that is done "before" what we have in  
IDNA2008 is used. So that what we really talk about is a standardized  
mapping procedure that applications use. I do not want to see an  
extension of U-label. That we have this definition now is one of the  
best things with IDNA2008, as we have severe confusion with IDNA2003  
where there is basically no difference between what is mapped and what  
goes in DNS.

Because of this, I do not have so much interest personally in exactly  
what is defined for this mapping, but I must say I am seriously  
confused by the ideas on doing two lookups. I strongly support the  
list of issues Marcos wrote about. You can _NOT_ do two lookups and  
think they have any context between them what so ever.

I also want to remind people that we have had file systems with  
different casing, line break and other special rules, and the world  
seems to have survived...

I think we "just" need documents that talk about how to handle  
different situations in the time of lookup (and similar  
recommendations for registries, but registries have already worked  
with these issues for many years, so I do not really see the big  


-------------- 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 : 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list