[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
#-# 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