Updating RFC 5890-5893 (IDNA 2008) to Full Standard
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Sat Nov 17 06:05:55 CET 2012
Let me try again.
1. Clearly there was consensus in the WG that a certain bundle of
features was more important than backwards compatibility. No objection to
2. Just as clearly, some people disagree with those priorities, and
think that backwards compatibility was more important than that bundle of
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM, John C Klensin <klensin at jck.com> wrote:
> --On Friday, November 16, 2012 15:59 -0800 Mark Davis ☕
> <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
> >> Mapping is not part of IDNA2008
> > I specifically did not say it was.
> > Option 1 is clearly *not* IDNA2008. That is option 2.
> > If Option 1 is expressed so as to accurately represent an
> > alternative approach that does maintain compatibility, then it
> > includes mapping.
> And retaining mapping as part of the protocol rejects the notion
> that having a dual relationship between A-labels and U-labels is
> very important (or even just important). The WG considered it
> quite important. See Vint's note. Also remember that IDNA is
> not just about the web and that other protocols that use domain
> names as part of identifiers (sometimes without resolving them)
> may have their own guidance about comparison of those
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update