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 UTC