[Idna-arabicscript] mapping of Full Stops

Erik van der Poel erikv at google.com
Mon Oct 12 19:57:06 CEST 2009

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:57:01AM -0700, Erik van der Poel wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 9:49 AM, "Martin J. Dürst"
>> > 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.
>> U+06D4 is allowed inside a label in IDNA2003. Sorry, I should have
>> been more explicit about that.
> Ick.  Surely we can't be advocating that things are sometimes in-label
> and sometimes not?

I don't think anyone is advocating that. But this is not the first
time that this WG is considering a change that is incompatible with
current IDNA2003 implementations. We have talked about transition
strategies, etc.

> Do we have any evidence, positive or negative, about the use of U+06D4
> intra-label?

In one sample of the Web that I took some time ago, U+06D4 did not
occur in any domain names in HTML. (Maybe this does not answer your
question, though.)


More information about the Idna-update mailing list