Touchstones for "Mapping"

Vint Cerf vint at
Wed Mar 25 00:15:40 CET 2009


thanks this is a helpful summary.

I suppose as to reality that YMMV :-)

I am looking forward to working with the WG members to use these ideas  
and the (transitional?) mapping mechanism to come to closure on  


Vint Cerf
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
vint at

On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:46 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> I heard a few principles in IDNABIS this week that I'd like to
> identify.  They all relate to "Mapping", or "input assistance", but at
> any rate we're talking about pre-lookup logic.
> 1.  Canonical forms:  encourage labels to be stored and displayed,
> whenever possible, in a canonical form.  The protocol only uses the
> canonical form.
> 2. Conservatism: in no cases map something valid to something else
> valid!
> 3.  Consistency of conversion: encourage software to apply the same
> global conversions (aka mappings) if they feel it necessary to help
> users get from an invalid input to a ULabel. Some implementors will,
> however, choose to use alternate mappings no matter what we do.
> 4.  Confirmation: encourage software implementors to confirm a valid
> ULabel as the user's intended input, where possible and appropriate
> The last one I discussed mostly after the second meeting slot, but it
> seemed to help people feel much more comfortable with having software
> map user input to something valid.
> I believe this is a reality-based approach, but that's only insofar as
> I understand reality!
> Lisa
> --- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---
> Messaging Architects sponsors The Spamhaus Project.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list