The Future of IDNA
kenw at sybase.com
Thu Mar 19 23:42:46 CET 2009
Erik said in response to Andrew:
> > This is a complete red herring, I think, because there are lots of
> > zone administrators in the universe who are paying exactly no
> > attention to the IETF.
> We have plenty of Unicode and language experts on this mailing list.
> Don't you think someone would have spoken up if they thought that
> mapping tonos away is a bad idea?
O.k., I'm a Unicode and language expert on this mailing list. *I*
think mapping tonos away in the protocol is a bad idea. That is
the kind of equivalencing that *should* be done by bundling
(if required). It goes even *further* down the path of
mapping (and in this case, is even a language-specific mapping)
than IDNA 2003, so would introduce an interoperability problem
with IDNA 2003 in the *opposite* direction of the current
situation of not providing even any mappings to match what is done
in IDNA 2003.
Please do not mistake people being unwilling to engage 24/7 in
this endless discussion on the list with unanimous consent
to every point you make.
More information about the Idna-update