AW: Eszett and IDNAv2 vs IDNA2008

Georg Ochsner g.ochsner at
Thu Mar 12 22:34:44 CET 2009

I think, maybe you are making things about Eszett too complicated...

My perception is:

- "ß" and "ss" are linguistically two different things.
- Many people do now think that the mapping in IDNA2003 was a (big) mistake, which can be corrected now.
- There is consensus to make ß PVALID in IDNA2008.
- In the future domains with ß and ss should be autarchic domains in the DNS.
- As a registrant it can, but not necessarily must be interesting to have two domains, that just vary in ß and ss. (e.g. buß means where means in English - two completely different meanings)
- Therefore the registries can make up their minds if they offer a sunrise period or bundling or something else or nothing at all when introducing ß - or just not to introduce ß.
- If a registrant owns both domains (with ß and ss) he can easily decide which one he redirects to the other, hence which one will be shown and stay in the browsers address bar. (browser as an example application)

- In applications during a transition phase in order to prevent fraud or serious confusion there could be some mechanism which tells a user that he entered a domain with ß which can be treated in two ways: mapped to ss (like in IDNA2003) or looked up as ß (like possible since IDNA2008). The user decides what to do and can even store his answer for all future ß lookups.

What also comes to my memory:
- Many applications including browsers do not even support IDNA2003 (and ß) yet.
- When German Umlauts (ä, ö, ü) were introduced together with IDNA2003 there was a quite similar challenge for the registries regarding existing domains with "ae", "oe" and "ue". They dealt with it of course.
- If you try to look up a WHOIS record at Denic for a domain spelled with ß (e.g. süß you will get an error message that the domain is not valid. The registrant who registered sü never had two domains, people just had the option, that in some applications (featuring INDA2003) they were redirected from süß to his domain instead of getting an error.

Best regards

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: idna-update-bounces at [mailto:idna-update-bounces at] Im Auftrag von Erik van der Poel
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. März 2009 18:42
An: IDNA update work
Cc: Shawn Steele (???)
Betreff: Re: Eszett and IDNAv2 vs IDNA2008


If the registrant would prefer the name to be displayed with Eszett no
matter which way the user typed the name, they would want some
mechanism to indicate the preferred display.


On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Adam M. Costello
<idna-update.amc+0+ at> wrote:
> "Shawn Steele (???)" <Shawn.Steele at> wrote:
>> In my view the real problem comes when I don't know what the preferred
>> display form is supposed to be.
> You mean you have received a mapped label (either ACE or mapped &
> normalized Unicode) and you want to display it.  Can you give example
> scenarios?  How did you receive the label, why do you want to display
> it, and why did the sender give you a mapped label instead of a more
> display-friendly label?  I'm sure this happens, but I want to understand
> how common or uncommon it will be.
> The example I'm already familiar with is email applications displaying
> headers, and the problem is being address by recent specs for UTF-8 mail
> headers, which will (I think) enable the sender to leave the domain
> names unmapped in the header, just as the user typed them.
> Thanks,
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list