Mapping Poll - REQUEST

Shawn Steele Shawn.Steele at
Tue Feb 9 18:55:40 CET 2010

IMO the key point is to update to the latest Unicode tables.  (& fix issues, esp with BIDI).

Sorry, but having domain name mappings change based on some user, machine, or locale config is not generally helpful.  I can't think of one place that type of behavior could be useful.  Having a canonical, unmapped form is mildly interesting, but you had that with IDNA2003.  (If you wanted, you could do X?=ToUnicode(ToASCII(X)) and see if it had changed or not).

With IDNA2008 my changes will be to change the BIDI rules, and update the mapping tables.  Anything else provided by IDNA2008 aren't features I'm using.  (Some additional work though is still useful because the registrars should be using them even though I'm not on the client).


From: idna-update-bounces at [idna-update-bounces at] on behalf of Andrew Sullivan [ajs at]
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:05 AM
To: idna-update at
Subject: Re: Mapping Poll - REQUEST

On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 05:01:30PM +0000, Shawn Steele wrote:
> IMO this accurately discribes the gulf between the two positions,
> however I would not say that we're stuck with #1 just because it was
> an idea some people originally had at the beginning of this effort.

No, I agree that we need not be stuck with it just because it was a
founding principle of the work.  But I think we have a giant, totally
pointless lot of difficulty in the protocol if we're not going to
cleave to that principle.  If we were going to reproduce the mapping
rules of 2003, with maybe a couple changes, we should have adopted the
approach Paul Hoffman suggested nearly a year ago, IIRC: just update
IDNA2003 to reflect the latest Unicode, and commit to a regular
revision schedule.


Andrew Sullivan
ajs at
Shinkuro, Inc.
Idna-update mailing list
Idna-update at

More information about the Idna-update mailing list