Re: Standardizing on IDNA 2003 in the URL Standard

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Gervase Markham <> wrote:
> UTS46 is, among
> other things, the mapping layer which IDNA2008 says should be
> implemented,

Not is not. Many people in this thread have voiced their opposition to
UTS46 and the desire to move away from it entirely.

> Fixing on IDNA2003 would permanently block all those scripts which have
> been added to Unicode since 3.2 (is that right?)

No that is wrong and that's not how we implement IDNA2003 in Gecko.

> If you decide to "fix" that, then you aren't using IDNA2003 any
> more, and you are "changing the rules" in a way to which you have
> indicated opposition - and worse, in a non-standard way.

It's not worse if it's fully backwards compatible and mostly
interoperable across all major clients. At that point the standard is
just wrong.

> It has always been my understanding, and I've had confirmation certainly
> from the Germans, that the backwardly-incompatible changes in IDNA2008
> relating to the four exception chars - Greek sigma, Eszett, ZWJ and ZWNJ
> - are endorsed by the registries of the languages most affected. In
> other words, as people closest to the problem, they still think changing
> is less bad than sticking with IDNA2003. That should count for a lot.

If that was all that had changed, I might be more optimistic. I refer
you to my earlier email about simple things as lowercasing.


Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 11:17:38 UTC