[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[idn] Openendedness of Unicode/10464 (was: RE: [APTLD iname 24] Re: [idn] Proposed suggestions from AsiaPacific Top LevelDomain meeting)
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: [idn] Openendedness of Unicode/10464 (was: RE: [APTLD iname 24] Re: [idn] Proposed suggestions from AsiaPacific Top LevelDomain meeting)
- From: Karlsson Kent - keka <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:11:16 +0100
- Delivery-date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 10:12:10 -0800
- Envelope-to: email@example.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> We probably only have one shot at doing this, at least for
> the next five
> years. There will be massive complaints if we do IDNv1 now
> and then try to
> do IDNv2 in two years, particularly if v2 allows some characters not
> allowed in v1.
But, but, ... This is what we MUST allow. New characters are added
to Unicode/10646, and will continue to do so for many years to come.
That's why I said that which characters are allowed or not is a registration
issue. There must be nothing in the IDN implementations themselves
that 'police against' not yet allowed characters, because such 'policing'
causes problems for names that SHOULD be allowed later on. The
*registrators* should police against registring names that include
code points, *until* those code points are allocated in Unicode/10646.
Non-identifier characters (like symbols and punctuation, except a small
number of them) should be policed against *by the name registries*,
but *not by IDN implementations themselves*. They may be useful
later, and should be 'reserved' for that. They must not be 'illegal'
in the sense that domain name servers reject them (in any other
way than "not found" after a diligent search).
Yes, I know, this WG is not about what registrators are allowed to do,
but this issue falls somewhere inbetween 'protocol' and 'policy'.