RE: convert to punycode: SHOULD or MAY (was: RE: Are IDNs allowed in http IRIs?)

It's now a week since I tentatively closed issue
http://www.w3.org/International/iri-edit/#punycodeSHOULD-23.
I haven't heard about any problem, so I'm closing this issue.

Regards,  Martin.

At 13:17 04/04/27 +0900, Martin Duerst wrote:

>Hello Larry,
>
>At 03:07 04/03/30 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
>>I think this is an interoperability issue, and that neither SHOULD nor MAY
>>are appropriate. Rather, there is a MUST with a couple of alternatives.
>>Implementations
>>resolving an IRI with non-ascii host names MUST use one of the established
>>methods of resolving the host name correctly.
>
>I think this is a very valid point. However, I think that this is
>overall covered by the current spec. The spec has an overall MUST
>for the general conversion procedure:
>
>"Applications MUST map IRIs to URIs using the following two steps."
>
>It then allows (MAY) an additional step in certain well-defined cases:
>
>"Infrastructure accepting IRIs MAY convert the ireg-name
>component of an IRI as follows (before step 2 above) for schemes
>that are known to use domain names in ireg-name, but where the
>scheme definition does not allow %-escaping for ireg-name:"
>
>Finally, it recommends that the above additional step be taken
>under certain conditions:
>
>"This conversion SHOULD be used when the goal is to
>maximize interoperability with legacy URI resolvers."
>
>So it seems to me that this is covered. Of course, there is
>always the question of whether other things, not discussed in
>the spec, are allowed or not, but I think it is a general
>principle when writing IETF specs to not include generalities
>such as "Any other method than those discussed in this
>document MUST NOT be used."
>
>
>I hope this reply sufficiently addresses this issue
>(punycodeSHOULD-23). I have noted this as tentatively closed.
>
>
>Regards,     Martin.

Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 04:17:34 UTC