Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com
Sat Jan 29 22:15:44 CET 2011
I'm somewhat concerned about the ensuing compatibility :) It seems like vendors have 4+ options right now.
* IDNA2008 (no mapping)
* 5895 mappings
* UTS#46 mappings
It is unfortunate that there's this much confusion.
From: John C Klensin [klensin at jck.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 11:33 AM
To: Shawn Steele; Mark Davis ☕
Cc: Simon Josefsson; idna-update at alvestrand.no; Peter Constable; Dave Thaler
Subject: RE: Lower casing
--On Saturday, January 29, 2011 6:35 PM +0000 Shawn Steele
<Shawn.Steele at microsoft.com> wrote:
> I completely agree. We'd agreed (sort of) to disagree,
> however you brought up more details and I felt compelled to
> respond. People should make well informed decisions with data
> from both points of view.
> It is worth noting that, on the web, IDNA2008 needs mapping
> for lookup of user input. UTS#46 seems to be the preferred
> mechanism, though there's some difference of opinion
> (obviously) about the transitional part. So I'd encourage
> people to look at/use UTS#46 even if they skipped the
> transitional part of UTS#46.
And, obviously, RFC 5895 provides a different, less aggressive,
model. I suggest that people should look at both and then make
whatever informed decisions suit their needs.
More information about the Idna-update