W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-iri@w3.org > February 2012

Re: FW: UTS #46, Unicode IDNA Compatibility Processing, Version 6.1 Released

From: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:08:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_FzuqB+ykAJQVVtJ+0GM9-kyOmOmPFzCW9qoOtZfH3dog@mail.gmail.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, public-iri@w3.org
That's a misrepresentation of what happened, and what resulted.

What the consortium members (many of whom have major browser or search
engine implementations) concluded is that because IDNA2008 breaks backwards
compatibility, many people could not move immediately to deployment. The
document, if you look at it, provides a transitional mechanism specifically
for the period when registries have not yet adopted IDNA2008, but people
want their browsers and search engines to still work.

The main change in the new version is that it adds a field specifically for
IDNA2008 conformance, to help people moving off of the transitional
mechanism.

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
*
*
*
[https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033]
*



On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 17:44, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

> If the question is really about UTS #46, I'd encourage everyone
> relevant to read RFC 5704, substituting IDNA and various Unicode
> actions for MPLS and ITU-T as needed.   The point is roughly the
> same: the Unicode Consortium decided that a (somewhat
> incompatible) "improvement" to IDNA was needed, could not get
> consensus for that specification in the IETF, and so went off
> and wrote their own.
>
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 02:09:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 April 2012 19:52:04 GMT