Re: Standardizing on IDNA 2003 in the URL Standard

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Gervase Markham <> 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.


Received on Thursday, 16 January 2014 11:49:14 UTC