Lower casing

Shawn Steele 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.

* IDNA2003
* 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 mailing list