[Idna-arabicscript] mapping of Full Stops
phoffman at imc.org
Sun Oct 11 19:52:31 CEST 2009
At 9:03 AM -0700 10/11/09, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>In my opinion, it would be premature to include U+06D4 in the IDNAbis
>mapping draft (apart from the fact that it is rather late in the Last
>Calls process to be making such a change).
It is not late at all. We are still in IETF Last Call, which is exactly the time we are supposed to be having these community-wide discussions.
>U+3002 has a much longer
>history in IDNA and is much more firmly established.
>If U+06D4 would
>be mapped to U+002E at the data interchange level (think HTML), there
>would be a period where IDNA2003 implementations and new
>implementations would resolve domain names differently.
No one has suggested that we do that, of course. If someone wants to mis-implement draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings, there is nothing we can do to stop them.
> Of course, the
>IDNAbis mapping draft explicitly states that it is intended to be used
>at the UI level (e.g. keyboard input), but, frankly, I don't think we
>have much experience with IDNA implementations that distinguish
>between the UI and data interchange levels.
So, what do you propose instead? If this is a proposal to abandon draft-ietf-idnabis-mappings, you need to be more explicit about it. If it is not such a proposal, then you need to say what parts of the draft need to be abandoned to deal with your concern.
At 12:24 PM -0400 10/11/09, Vint Cerf wrote:
>I agree that this is a rather substantive change; may we hear from
>in IDNABIS WG please?
I do not feel this is a substantiative change, given the hand-wavyness of wording involoved. If a group of experts in a script say that a particular character "can be mapped to the FULL STOP before label separation occurs" and that its "use as such has ... been investigated thoroughly", then that character is a reasonable addition to our current list of one item.
>We are going to have to draw these last call discussions to a close
The IETF Last Call ends on 2009-10-13. There is then a discussion of what suggestions that came up during IETF LC should be incorporated into the various documents. Once the documents reflect the desired changes, the AD passes them along to the IESG for review.
More information about the Idna-update