Re: Some issues with the IRI document [nfcnfkc-04]

At 5:22 PM -0400 4/15/03, Martin Duerst wrote:
>Overall, the normalization strategy on IRIs varies according to the
>place in the URI:
>
>- For domain name part: use NFKC or more (i.e. nameprep), but
>   gets normalized again (with nameprep) when doing dns lookup.
>- For the path part: preferably NFKC, but NFC is okay when needed.
>- For the query part: There may be cases where you on purpose
>   want to use something totally unnormalized (e.g. when submitting
>   unnormalized data to a CGI script that normalizes).
>
>Does that sound reasonable? Do you think it needs any changes in the
>draft, and if yes, what would be those changes?

It doesn't sound reasonable if you intend IRI comparison to be 
interoperable. If you don't intend IRI comparison to be 
interoperable, I still would pick one normalization for each of the 
three parts, and I would pick NFKC, but you don't have to be 
consistent if interoperability isn't important.

Am I the only person who worries about IRI comparison being interoperable?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium