Eszett and IDNAv2 vs IDNA2008

Cary Karp ck at
Sun Mar 15 16:40:47 CET 2009

>> Are you saying this on the basis of explicit knowledge of the
>> conditions that pertained when the IDNs first began appearing in the
>> identifier space, or are you making an intuitive appraisal?
> I'm guessing.
>> From the
>> IDN registry side of things it sure seemed as though VeriSign's IE6
>> plug-in was being routinely downloaded by anyone who wanted to
>> access IDN-labeled resources with a browser.
> I'm sure the absolute number seemed large, but do you have any actual
> percentages? Or estimates?

The percentage of IE6 users who downloaded the VeriSign plug-in in
order to access IDN-labeled resources was 100%. I assume that Pat
Kane can provide the absolute numbers, as can Wil Tan with regard to
the alternative IE6 plug-in that he provided.

> I'm not sure whether Eszett users are clamoring for IDNAbis. Perhaps
> the Greeks are, but not because of Final Sigma. They want to solve
> their tonos problem. And I have to agree that ZWJ/ZWNJ users seem to
> be clamoring for IDNAbis.

How on earth did IDNA2008 become a matter of providing support for this
handful of code points?  I though it was primarily about ensuring that
communities whose scripts aren't included in Unicode 3.2 will be
accommodated without need for further protocol revision, as the Unicode
repertoire is expanded. Or that scripts which are in 3.2, but are
barred from the IDN space because of flaws in IDNA2003, could similarly
be made available.

Anyone who doubts how incendiary this need is, would be well advised to
review the transcripts of any of the "open forums" at the past few
dozen ICANN meetings.


More information about the Idna-update mailing list