- From: Michel Suignard <michel@suignard.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:38:17 +0000
- To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>, yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <public-iri@w3.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, "IDNA update work" <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, www-tag.w3.org <www-tag@w3.org>
>However there is nothing that prevents anyone from proposing an update to IDNA2003 that uses a newer (but also hard-coded) Unicode version. The IDNABIS WG chose not to go down that route, though, so it may be hard to gain consensus around that approach, but IDNA2008 adoption seems to (IMHO) be marginal, inconsistent and insufficient so there may be room for re-consideration. I am not sure about the marginal adoption of IDNA2008. True, most seems to adopt IDNA2008 with some consideration of the transition for characters that are processed differently. But one aspect of IDNA2008 which is not emphasized enough is that it is much easier to create a table of PVALID characters for new characters. You just apply the rules expressed in IDNA2008 RFC against the new version of Unicode and you get instantly the new set of PVALID. No judgment call like it would be for IDNA2003. I experienced it firsthand in some work I recently had to do related to root domain names. In other words, there are no doubt in my mind that IDNA2008 is a much better solution going forward. Michel
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2014 20:39:02 UTC