RE: [idn] Re: An idn protocol for consideration in making the requirements

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

At 12:34 00/02/10 +0100, Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:

> ----------back to Ned's text-----------------------

> > The issue isn't the DNS, it is applications that use the DNS.  And nobody
> > claimed such applications will die either (although it is known that some
> very
> > old ones will). What is claimed is that applications will trash domain
> names in
> > UTF-8.

Ned, what exactly happened? It would be interesting to know
how much of that is:

- Security leaks
- System blowups
- Other screw-ups of whatever kind
- Simple 'domain not found' errors

Also, one potential failure from the old days is that the eigth bit
is lost. I would like to do some checks on how many of the currently
registered domain names could be interpreted as legal UTF-8 names
that had their 8th bit taken off (other than the trivial identity
case, which is of course UTF-8). If somebody can point me to some
data, or tell me how to get at it, or otherwise collaborate on this,
please tell me.


> > And please don't try and tell me otherwise; I've seen 
> > it happen many many times.
> 
> Reencoding non-ASCII into ASCII is a trashing in itself.  The
> experience with QP and BASE64 for text is frightening enough
> not to accept anything in that vein again.  And for e-mail
> those things were really temporary measures anyway, given 
> ESMPT and 8bit.  QP and BASE64 for 'plain' text are still used
> (even emitted by the e-mail system I use; which I cannot
> control in this respect).
> 
> I'd much rather have some temporary problems with UTF-8 than
> have permanent problems with something that reencodes non-ASCII
> into ASCII.

I think there are some very strong points here. One thing
that ASCII-based protocols are good at is ease of debugging.
UTF-8 would give you exactly that ease, you just have to
get the right terminal emulator. UTF-5 or CIDNUC don't give
you that at all.

Of course, some people may say that they don't read anything else
than ASCII anyway. Well, organizing your terminal emulator
so that it uses your favorite escaping is not a big problem.
But mangling things in the protocol so that those people
who could actually just read the stuff can't read, or may
only be able to read with much more sophisticated, specialized
tools that we will wait forever, is a much different thing.


> In a transition phase (or permanently, if desired) I see no
> real problem in having two or more names for the same domain,
> one of which had to be in ASCII.  People could then say "...if this
> domain/e-mail address does not work, try this one instead...".

We will need that anyway, anyhow.


Regards,    Martin.


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