[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] RE: An idn protocol for consideration in making the requirements
- To: Patrik Fältström <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [idn] RE: An idn protocol for consideration in making the requirements
- From: James Seng <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 10:57:21 +0800
- CC: "J. William Semich" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Karlsson Kent - keka <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivery-date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 19:00:06 -0800
- Envelope-to: email@example.com
I agreed with Patrik. It is always easy to say "lets do it in UTF-8 or UTF-5
or CIDNUC or etc". But it is more important to consider the consequences of
using different kind of encodings for IDN. This is why the requirement
document is so important and proper investigation need to be done before we
jump into conclusion.
And I would like to emphasis once again that IDN is not ONLY for DNS. Domain
mames are used beyond DNS and we have to consider the all the effects
(technical, implementation, legacy, security etc) of other related protocols
which is dependent on Domain names. While we are not in the position to change
these other protocols, it is definately important for us to evaluate the
Lets take it step by step and not rush into things.
Patrik Fältström wrote:
> --On 2000-02-03 14.26 -0500, "J. William Semich" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I agree with Kent on this. UTF-8 is it.
> Let's get done with the requirement before we talk about implementation,
> and, if we go with Unicode/10646 let's solve the meta-problem with sorting,
> casing and comparisons first, and encoding later.
> [As I told you in Stockholm :-) ] Coming up with an encoding is easy, doing
> the definitions on the meta-level is difficult.