Visually confusable characters (3)

Patrik Fältström paf at
Mon Aug 11 06:44:20 CEST 2014

On 10 aug 2014, at 21:15, Asmus Freytag <asmusf at> wrote:

> The most important is the ability to create equivalence classes among
> code point (and sequences), known as variant sets.

Variants have nothing to do with the equivalence that normalization does, and you can never ever replace lack of normalization with an equivalence set.

As John has explained, the issue here is that we have two set of representations that might be treated the same, without any normalization that say they are equivalent.

IETF has decided that IETF is to follow the rules that Unicode Consortium has created.

This basic rule lead to the change in IDNA2008 that ß is not to be treated the same as 'ss', as they where equivalent in IDNA2003 due to case folding rules (one of the things removed to IDNA2008 so that A-label and U-label are 1:1 mappings and translation between the two is reversible).

IDNA do have a mechanism for exceptions, and the whole idea for that is that we should be able to have these discussions.

So can we please stay with this discussion on what is to be used in DNS?

Variants have nothing to do with that. Variants have to do with *registration*policy*for the root zone, and then maybe a few TLDs. 

Nothing else.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <>

More information about the Idna-update mailing list