Re: [idn] URL encoding in html page

["James Seng" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>]

> Exactly correct.  However we need to highlight that the DNS concerns
> resolution.  It does not really concern display.

I am here in the middle with one group saying "we care only about
resolution" and another which say "display is also important". I am trying
to balance the two group by putting the all concerns together.

If display is not of your concern, then you can ignore that column. Some may
see it important, some may not. Let the fact speak for themselves.

> James, forgive me, but I do not understand why the analysis is considering
> a component that is entirely outside the standard.  Components that do not
> participate in a standard are not relevant to a discussion about
> interoperability.

Okay. This is reasonable.

Then let me rewrite this:

Protocol:
             Resolution        Display
           A1    MIM   A2      A1   A2
Case 1 :  okay  okay  okay    okay  okay   // IDNA A1, IDNA A2
Case 2 :  okay  okay  okay    okay  fail   // IDNA A1, non-IDNA A2
Case 3 :   ?     ?     ?       ?     ?     // non-IDNA A1, IDNA A2
Case 4 :   ?     ?     ?       ?     ?     // non-IDNA A1, non-IDNA A2

? since sending application A1 is non-IDNA, it is outside IDNA to predict
its behavior.

Let me know if this is agreeable. (Personally, I find it quite sad that we
could have at least capture when Case 3/4 would work if ACE is use directly
on A1)

-James Seng