RE: Standardizing on IDNA 2003 in the URL Standard from Shawn Steele on 2014-01-16 (uri@w3.org from January 2014)

From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:15:05 +0000
To: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
CC: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <public-iri@w3.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, www-tag.w3.org <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <fe12d5caa3f14285b9323413f0771e6a@BY2PR03MB491.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

> UTS 46 will stay around, if only for the mapping layer.

> Whether the rest would be used by clients really depends on the progress made by registries.
> As for the deviation-character support, I think implementations could stop supporting them if the affected
> registries enforced bundle-or-block.

I’m not sure that’s trivial.  Would all of the next layers enforce them?  (Blogspot.com for example, I have no clue what, if anything, blogspot does for IDN, but it’s a place that allows random users to create domain names).  How would we know?

Some of the registrars also originally stated that they didn’t want to bundle.

> As to the additional symbols, implementations could stop supporting them if the registries forbade them.

Same thing.

-Shawn

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 17:15:49 UTC