[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New Internet Draft on registering IDNs
Many thanks for the detailed editorial comments! I haven't listed
them here but went ahead and marked up the document. A few left-overs:
At 6:35 PM -0500 4/2/03, Martin Duerst wrote:
I often see 'JET document' in this discussion. Is this
draft-jseng-idn-admin, or something else?
That is the one.
I have been thinking about 'Framework' quite a bit. Is this draft
a framework? It seems to be a definition of a table format with
some associated algorithm(s), and a recommendation to use this
table format/algorithms. And the recommendation isn't very clear:
Should all registries use this table format/algorithm? Or is it
just one of potentially many formats/algorithms, and registries
can choose?
Sorry, I don't see how your questions apply to the word "framework".
Could you suggest alternative wording?
This document discusses characters that have equivalent or
near-equivalent characters or strings. The "base character" is the
character that has one or more equivalents; the "variant(s)" are the
character(s) and/or string(s) that are equivalent to the base character.
'base character' is used in the context of combining characters,
it would be better to find another term.
It seems pretty clear in the context of this document. Did anyone
else have a problem with this term? If so, alternative proposals are
appreciated.
I think the question of whether ASCII is allowed or not is a very
special one, which should be considered separately. There may
be cases where ASCII is already allowed; there is a good argument
for always allowing ASCII, in particular if the higher-level
domains are all ASCII; there is a good argument to not allow
ASCII if the higher-level domains are all non-ASCII.
These arguments are rather different from arguments about
allowing a few more or less characters.
I don't see why ASCII should be special. A registry decides which
characters are allowed in the IDN labels, regardless of the scripts.
Why does it seems special?
what about tables that don't have the same base character twice,
but may map to the same character? E.g.:
U+00E8|U+0065
U+00E9|U+0065
Or where a base character also appears as a variant
U+00E8|U+0065
U+0065
Or where a base character appears as part of a variant:
U+00FC|U+0075U+0065
U+0075
U+0065
I'm not sure what you mean by "what about" here. All of what you list
is just fine. There is nothing anywhere that prohibits those
possibilities. Are you proposing that I add examples with all these
in them?
If the owner of "example.com" used a DNAME
CNAME or DNAME?
DNAME. Using CNAMEs here would clearly be broken here because
allocated labels are not terminal.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium