[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] WG last call summary
"Eric A. Hall" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > For a given domain name slot (protocol element, structured data
> > field, function argument, etc), the governing specification...does
> > not dictate what you may do with the name after you've read it.
> True for message fields, false for the loosely-coupled data-types
> which are independent of a particular of any particular protocol
> message (email addresses, Message-ID, URLs, etc).
I'm not getting your point at all. Apparently you are concerned that
there exist scenarios where ToUnicode ought to be forbidden/discouraged,
but the IDNA draft allows/encourages it. Maybe if you described a
specific example of such a scenario, I'd start to understand.