U-labels, NFC, and symmetry

[Peter Saint-Andre]

On 4/15/11 9:50 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 07:19:34AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> How is it that NFC meets the symmetry requirement, but NFD does not?
>>
> 
> NFC meets the symmetry requirement because a string in NFD just isn't
> a U-label, period.  It might be equivalent to a string in NFC that is
> a U-label, but it is not itself a U-label.
> 
> This is really no different from the other mapping cases.  Given
> locale L and a string in ISO8859-N, you might know how to map string
> S(L,ISO8859-N) into a U-label, at which point you could start doing
> work on it.  But IDNA2008 is silent on that.
> 
> Similarly, given unnormalized Unicode, you could run it through NFC
> (and maybe some other stuff) and get it to be a U-label, but it isn't
> a U-label before that.
> 
> If what you're saying is that you want a definition of D-compatible
> U-label, I am not sure whether that is practical.

I (well, the XMPP folks) *might* want a D-compatible domaineything. I
think we've already determined that such a thing would not be a U-label.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6105 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20110415/1356c18c/attachment.bin>