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

Re: [idn] IDNA and Control codes (0-1F) and 7F

To: "Michel Suignard" <michelsu@windows.microsoft.com>, "IETF idn working group" <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [idn] IDNA and Control codes (0-1F) and 7F
From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:33:52 -0700
In-reply-to: <FD16260E2EDF204E80A22FB904A425C309AC44A5@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.nt dev.microsoft.com>
References: <FD16260E2EDF204E80A22FB904A425C309AC44A5@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.nt dev.microsoft.com>

At 4:43 PM -0700 9/13/04, Michel Suignard wrote:

By excluding table C.2.1 from the StringPrep profile used by IDNA, the
ToASCII operation allows all C0 control codes and 7F in its default mode
(UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag unset).

There is no "default mode" for IDNA. This was debated, but in the end we had to allow both methods of processing names. If anything, the UseSTD3ASCIIRules flag being *set* is probably the default for most systems processing domain names today, probably unconsciously.

Would a library that by default only allow the range 20-7E be still
considered conformant? In all cases, it would still honor the
UseSTD3ASCIIRules. Allowing the C0 control codes and 7F doesn't seem
that useful. I would have preferred to have a default mode excluding
them and if the full 00-7F is really required make it another optional
flag.

If such a library followed the IDNA spec with the UseSTD3ASCIIRules being set, it would certainly be conformant.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

Prev by Date: [idn] IDNA and Control codes (0-1F) and 7F
Next by Date: Re: [idn] IDNA and Control codes (0-1F) and 7F
Previous by thread: Re: [idn] IDNA and Control codes (0-1F) and 7F
Next by thread: RE: [idn] IDNA and Control codes (0-1F) and 7F
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread