Mapping Poll - REQUEST

Pete Resnick presnick at
Mon Feb 8 19:45:36 CET 2010

On 2/8/10 2:56 AM, Vint Cerf wrote:

> The options are tersely listed below:
> 1. Would the WG like to adopt the current "mapping document" as-is?

> 2. Would the WG like to engage in further discussion about this 
> document, for example in the context of the Unicode TR46 that 
> advocates substantially more mapping than the present "mappings"document?
No, and two things on this:

1. I don't think we will come to WG consensus to include the kinds of 
mappings that TR46 proposes. With my editor's off and only as a WG 
participant, I believe doing TR46 mappings in clients is actively broken 
and will cause horrible UI and interoperability problems in the long 
run, in addition to simply be against the whole purpose of IDNA2008 in 
the first place.

2. With my editor's hat firmly on: If such a mappings document does turn 
out to be the consensus of the WG, I will step down as editor because I 
do not think I can reasonably author such a document. In fact, I will 
likely write a very different document as an independent submission with 
much stronger terms than the current mappings document indicating why 
doing such mappings is a bad idea.

> 3. Would the WG propose an alternative path towards dealing with the 
> question of mapping and if so, what proposition(s) are offered by the 
> WG members?


More information about the Idna-update mailing list