Re: [idn] New protocol proposal: IDNRA

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

At 10.43 -0400 00-08-27, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>yeark! my own personal opinion (without my co-chair hat) is:
>- if we choose an ace, i won't put the ace encoding version on my 
>business card or on anything. I will prefer to have two equivalent 
>(equivalent for me as putting same services for both of them: smtp, 
>http,...) domain names: the ascii one (that I already got and keep 
>it and working) and the idn one with the real chars shown.
>- my take is that an end-user will do the same... imho
>- with the gibberish of most ace encoding (well some can be more 
>"readable" than others but this should not be a criteria for 
>choosing one), how can you make sure that someone will type it 
>correctly. very difficult.

Well, and I personally would use the ugly name in public, and scrap 
the ASCII one to force people to understand that they only have two 
alternatives:

(1) Type in ugly long strings
(2) Use applications that support IDN

:-)

I.e. I really like the ability for people (including myself) to be 
able to enter an ascii-version of the IDN name, and not a second 
domainname. I only want to register one, and only one domainname 
which suits my needs. On some (old) platforms / applications I need 
to enter the ascii ugly version.

Anyway, that view of mine is understood if you read the draft of Paul 
and myself...so I will stop arguing.

<Not completely serious>
Mostly I like proposals like this because we don't have to change any 
of the applications at all. It makes like much easier for people in 
my (Applications) area.
</Not completely serious>

ASCII encodings all over the place has its advantages...

    paf