- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:48:45 +0000
- To: Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org>
- Cc: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>, yaojk <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" <public-iri@w3.org>, "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>, IDNA update work <idna-update@alvestrand.no>, "www-tag.w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Gervase Markham <gerv@mozilla.org> wrote: > On 16/01/14 11:17, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> 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. > > And having a standard fixed to Unicode 3.2 is not also "just wrong"? The point is that in practice, it isn't fixed to Unicode 3.2. I have yet to encounter an IDNA2003 implementation that does that. It turns out the setup we have in practice is a compatible evolution. > And I refer you to my comments above. Problems like lowercasing (for > better or worse) are punted by IDNA2008 and are labelled as an > application-level problem. In practice, what everyone should do for best > interoperability is implement the same application-level mappings, and > implement ones which are as compatible as possible with IDNA2003. > Hence.... UTS46. I think I did mention earlier on UTS46 might be okay, depending on the details. I am hoping to hear from Mark on the matter. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 11:49:14 UTC