Re: Fwd: Eeek - .NU Domains using

["Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>]

At 07:56 00/01/10 -0800, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> >We can say that "there is no requirement for mixing A with B inside a 
> >single label", where A and B are different subsets of the set of all 
> >characters.
> >Giving a few examples is probably Good Enough for the requirements.
> 
> I disagree that we can say "there is no requirement". There may be no 
> *current* requirement, but we don't know about the future. Why should we 
> limit this now?

Paul, we don't say 'there is no requirement', we just say 'we don't
know about any currently'. If this were the only area of requirements,
then we would have no reason to discuss limits.

However, as you have very well summarized in your
"Getting back to first principles for requirements", there are
others. In particular the requirements for non-ambiguity and
ease of transcribability between paper/... and keyboard.

And what we were discussing is how to resolve conflicts in
this area in a way that does not require artificial intelligence
in the DNS software and doesn't require to know 100 languages
to work at a DNS registrar.

Regards,   Martin.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-#  mailto:duerst@w3.org   http://www.w3.org