W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Standardizing on IDNA 2003 in the URL Standard

From: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:59:55 +0100
Message-ID: <52160B4B.9040507@mozilla.org>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>, Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <public-iri@w3.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>, Marcos Sanz <sanz@denic.de>, Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>, "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 22/08/13 13:17, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> wrote:
>> There are three major options for clients:
>> 1 Move immediately to IDNA2008.
>> 2 Stay on IDNA2003.
>> 3 Move to TR46+IDNA2008 as a transition to IDNA2008.
>> Recent history has shown that the major clients are reluctant to do #1
>> because of compatibility concerns. I don't think anyone really wants #2,
>> because it has an archaic Unicode version, but people are sticking with that
>> if they see #1 as the only other choice.
>> That effectively leaves #3. And certainly major players like IE have shown
>> that it can be deployed effectively.
> 2 as deployed is not stuck on an archaic Unicode version.

Are you sure that "as deployed" is interoperable, or have different
browsers done the "add new Unicode to IDNA2003" step differently?

Have you been arguing for 2 because you don't want 1? I'm not sure
anyone's been arguing for 1. It's always been about 3.

Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 13:00:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC