[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [idn] host name vs. domain name



Title: RE: [idn] host name vs. domain name


> -----Original Message-----
> From: md@linux.it [mailto:md@linux.it]
> Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 9:25 PM
> Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [idn] host name vs. domain name
>
>
> On Mar 16, Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se> wrote:
>
>  >> 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
> Please support your claims with a rationale.
>
>  >It seems to me that you have not been so subjected to QP and
>  >BASE64 during the last decade.  I have.  My collegues have.
> I have. When using not MIME-aware software usually I could not display
> raw 8 bit characters either.

They usually can, for some 'charset's at least.

Still, we still see undecoded QP every now and then.

>  >> 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.
> How do you think these lazy people would type undecoded UTF-8
> characters (i.e., some 8 bit characters which may not be on their
> keyboard)?

That does not make sense.  You seem to confuse character encoding
with keyboard functionality.

UTF-8 is *technically* on an equal footing with 8859-x, CP125x, and
CP9xx. "UTF-5", CIDNUC, QP, BASE64 are quite different, all of them
are *reencodings* (into ASCII); they are so-called TESes.  In addition
all of them are applicable only on restricted contexts, and determining
when to apply the decode and when not to is the main problem.  As such,
they are much *worse* than ISO 2022-based solutions (that, if used,
can at least be applied for the entire text).

You are also fogetting that UTF-8 will be very widely supported.
Whereas, even if accepted here, e.g. CIDNUC will have exceedingly
little support, and where supported it will be so only for some
very small portions of text, which ones will be *hard* to determine,
and the decoding will thus remain unreliable forever.

                Kind regards
                /kent k

> --
> ciao,
> Marco
>
>