[Idna-arabicscript] mapping of Full Stops
Erik van der Poel
erikv at google.com
Mon Oct 12 18:57:01 CEST 2009
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:49 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
<duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> On 2009/10/12 1:03, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>> 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
U+06D4 is allowed inside a label in IDNA2003. Sorry, I should have
been more explicit about that.
More information about the Idna-update