Mapping Poll - REQUEST

[Patrik Fältström]

On 9 feb 2010, at 18.55, Shawn Steele wrote:

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

There are two more things that I like:

1. We have a 1:1 mapping A-label and U-label, so people do not have to do X?=ToUnicode(ToASCII(X)). And in reality people did not, and was confused. Is X a domain name, or ToUnicode(ToASCII(X)), or both?

2. The specification is independent of Unicode version.

> 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).

I agree with this, but unfortunately we already today have various "games" going on by the applications, for example:

A. The addition of "www" and "com" and other various elements and labels to a domain name when used for example in a web brower

B. The common addition of a search path that will automatically add labels to the end of a domain name before resolution

C. Various mappings if the end user uses a charset that is not Unicode, similar to the ToUnicode(ToASCII(X)) mapping

But people are used to these (I guess?) and accept them (I guess?) as they are so popular and people continue to both implement and deploy them.

I on the other hand, would like to get rid of these things as well.

   Patrik

> 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).
> 
> -Shawn
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] on behalf of Andrew Sullivan [ajs at shinkuro.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:05 AM
> To: idna-update at alvestrand.no
> 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.
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at shinkuro.com
> Shinkuro, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20100209/c338c165/attachment.pgp