- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:17:58 +0100
- To: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
- Cc: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, 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 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. 3 might be interesting, depending on what variant is chosen. E.g. Gerv has been suggesting that we in Gecko should implement a different variety from Internet Explorer... (I'm not a fan.) Overall though I feel compatibility is downplayed way too much. It's very bad to break deployed content. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 12:18:27 UTC