Standardizing on IDNA 2003 in the URL Standard
Anne van Kesteren
annevk at annevk.nl
Thu Jan 16 12:17:10 CET 2014
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
> UTS46 is, among
> other things, the mapping layer which IDNA2008 says should be
Not is not. Many people in this thread have voiced their opposition to
UTS46 and the desire to move away from it entirely.
> Fixing on IDNA2003 would permanently block all those scripts which have
> been added to Unicode since 3.2 (is that right?)
No that is wrong and that's not how we implement IDNA2003 in Gecko.
> If you decide to "fix" that, then you aren't using IDNA2003 any
> more, and you are "changing the rules" in a way to which you have
> indicated opposition - and worse, in a non-standard way.
It's not worse if it's fully backwards compatible and mostly
interoperable across all major clients. At that point the standard is
> It has always been my understanding, and I've had confirmation certainly
> from the Germans, that the backwardly-incompatible changes in IDNA2008
> relating to the four exception chars - Greek sigma, Eszett, ZWJ and ZWNJ
> - are endorsed by the registries of the languages most affected. In
> other words, as people closest to the problem, they still think changing
> is less bad than sticking with IDNA2003. That should count for a lot.
If that was all that had changed, I might be more optimistic. I refer
you to my earlier email about simple things as lowercasing.
More information about the Idna-update