RE: [idn] host name vs. domain name

[Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: md@linux.it [mailto:md@linux.it]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 9:46 PM
> Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [idn] host name vs. domain name
> 
> 
> On Mar 14, Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se> wrote:
> 
>  >Let me note again that CIDNUC and such are unacceptable, since
>  >they are reencodings into ASCII that turn (for some people)
>  >understandable names into complete gibberish, and given the QP
>  >(and BASE64 for text) experience I have no optimism of having
>  >that gibberish properly decoded whenever presented to a user.

> If old software can't decode CIDNUC, it can't decode UTF-8 either.

Most software will be able to handle UTF-8 for any text.
Very little software will handle CIDNUC, and has to do
so very sparsely.  CIDNUC WILL result in problems that will
persist for decades.  UTF-8, on the other hand, will be
univerally handleable.

> If CIDNUC or a similar encoding scheme will be used, users 
> with obsolete
> clients will not be able to read the "real" domain, but there will not
> be any interoperability problem among updated and old software.

It seems to me that you have not been so subjected to QP and
BASE64 during the last decade.  I have.  My collegues have.
Many, many more have.  No-one's pleased.  And the problem isn't
gone yet.

> Maybe a CIDNUC encoded domain is gibberish, but it's a kind 
> of gibberish
> I can easily type and display on a characters cell terminal.

Most people would consider it pure garbage, and never type it.

		Kind regards
		/kent k

> -- 
> ciao,
> Marco
> 
>