- From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:17:10 -0400
- 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>, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>, Vint Cerf <vint@google.com>, "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 01:17:58PM +0100, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> wrote: > > 2 Stay on IDNA2003. > 2 as deployed is not stuck on an archaic Unicode version. Right. 2 as deployed instead has _new_ compatibility problems as new registries and names compatible with IDNA2008 but that don't work correctly under IDNA2003 come online. Since that's where all the growth in Unicode is, this position represents the trade off of preventing a few things breaking right now (including a number of names that are impossible to type, like those with smileys and so on) at the cost of breaking future things more and more, as the IDNA2003 assumption of Unicode 3.2 shows more and more strain. It seems to me that one possible explanation for the success of IPv4 was the early willingness to say, "These early ones didn't work. We're breaking them, even if you're using them. Sorry." I very strongly agree that preserving compatibility is extremely important. But if you're going to have to break things -- and given what we've learned, _some_ stuff needs to break -- the time to do it is as soon as possible. The problem will only be worse over time. Best, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 15:17:33 UTC