[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] RE: An idn protocol for consideration in making the requirements
- To: Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se>,idn@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Re: [idn] RE: An idn protocol for consideration in making the requirements
- From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich)
- Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 14:26:27 -0500
- Delivery-date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 11:33:14 -0800
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
I agree with Kent on this. UTF-8 is it.
Bill Semich
At 08:18 PM 2/3/00 +0100, Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
>>>>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [<mailto:phoffman@imc.org>mailto:phoffman@imc.org]
...
> <<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-idn-cidnuc-00.txt>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-idn-cidnuc-00.txt>.
|...
|2.5 Base32
|
|In order to encode non-ASCII characters in DNS-compatible domain parts,
|they must be converted into legal characters. This is done with Base32
|encoding, described here.
|
|Table 3 shows the mapping between input bits and output characters in
|Base32. Design note: the digits used in Base32 are "2" through "8" ("8"
|...
Oh, no! Not Q-P/BASE64/UTF-7 all over again. Fortunately UTF-7 never
became popular, but Q-P still haunts us after a decade. For my part,
I will not support any new/special/extra encoding for IDN.
Can we please learn from past mistakes and NOT do a "Q-P" blunder again.
UTF-8 as-is is backwards compatible with ASCII. Is there any specific
reason to beleive that any DNS equipment (software) that is not ONLY
collecting dust would misbehave badly because of UTF-8 (beyond "not found",
which may be tolarable for a while)?
Kind regards
/kent k
<<<<
Bill Semich
President and Founder
.NU Domain Ltd
http://whats.nu
bill@mail.nic.nu