The Two Lookups Approach (was Re: Parsing the issuesand finding a middle ground -- another attempt)
patrik at frobbit.se
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...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090307/464c2bfb/attachment.pgp
More information about the Idna-update