[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [idn] host name vs. domain name
- To: "'md@linux.it'" <md@linux.it>
- Subject: RE: [idn] host name vs. domain name
- From: Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 13:05:58 +0100
- Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 04:07:11 -0800
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: md@linux.it [mailto:md@linux.it]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 9:46 PM
> Cc: idn@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [idn] host name vs. domain name
>
>
> On Mar 14, Karlsson Kent - keka <keka@im.se> wrote:
>
> >Let me note again that CIDNUC and such are unacceptable, since
> >they are reencodings into ASCII that turn (for some people)
> >understandable names into complete gibberish, and given the QP
> >(and BASE64 for text) experience I have no optimism of having
> >that gibberish properly decoded whenever presented to a user.
> If old software can't decode CIDNUC, it can't decode UTF-8 either.
Most software will be able to handle UTF-8 for any text.
Very little software will handle CIDNUC, and has to do
so very sparsely. CIDNUC WILL result in problems that will
persist for decades. UTF-8, on the other hand, will be
univerally handleable.
> If CIDNUC or a similar encoding scheme will be used, users
> with obsolete
> clients will not be able to read the "real" domain, but there will not
> be any interoperability problem among updated and old software.
It seems to me that you have not been so subjected to QP and
BASE64 during the last decade. I have. My collegues have.
Many, many more have. No-one's pleased. And the problem isn't
gone yet.
> Maybe a CIDNUC encoded domain is gibberish, but it's a kind
> of gibberish
> I can easily type and display on a characters cell terminal.
Most people would consider it pure garbage, and never type it.
Kind regards
/kent k
> --
> ciao,
> Marco
>
>