> >I would like to have as a REQUIREMENT that IDN does NOT
> >invent its own encoding, but uses one that is, or is
> >expected to be, used just about everyhere else too.
>
> Hmm. Agree that IDN ought not invent its own
> new encoding. We should prefer to use an existing
> standards-based encoding.
>
> >Yes, that disqualifies BASE32, BASE64, QP, UTF-7, ...
> >But that's the point. Using an encoding that is not
> >used in many other places is highly problematic, and
> >may have ill consequences for decades to come. QP
> >has shown us that, in case it is not obvious.
>
> Your first statement does not disqualify either BASE64 or QP.
> Both of those are widely used and standard. They might not
> be appropriate choices in this situation, but they don't violate
> your requirement as you have stated it above.
Note the
"but uses one that is, or is expected to be,
used just about everyhere else too"!
BASE65 and QP are not commonly interpreted. Only e-mail
and """news""" (and possibly something else) uses it.
My intention is certainly that BASE64 and QP should be
required to be out of the question. "URL-encoding/%-encoding"
(not commonly interpreted) and SGML/XML "&-encoding"
(only interpreted when processing SGML/XML data; not
interpreted otherwise) are also intended to be excluded.
Kind regards
/kent k