[Idna-arabicscript] mapping of Full Stops

"Martin J. Dürst" duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Mon Oct 12 18:49:50 CEST 2009

On 2009/10/12 1:03, 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).

I agree with Paul that it's not late in the IETF Last Call process.

> 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.

Was U+06D4 allowed inside a label in IDNA 2003? If yes, then this will 
indeed be a problem. If not, then the difference is only between being 
resolved (with appropriate mapping in IDNA 2008) and not resolved (in 
IDNA 2003), which is an unfortunate but tolerable difference in 
implementation behavior.

Regards,   Martin.

#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp

More information about the Idna-update mailing list