[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Planning ahead for good IDNs
- To: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Re: [idn] Planning ahead for good IDNs
- From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
- Date: 13 Jan 2001 00:38:53 -0000
- Cc: eric@sendmail.org
- Delivery-date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:43:55 -0800
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
- Mail-Followup-To: eric@sendmail.org, idn@ops.ietf.org
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
> | There seems to be widespread agreement, even among ACE proponents,
> | that we will _eventually_ move to UTF-8 domain names.
> There is?
Apparently so. I see a few people saying that big-endian UCS-4 would be
better, but none of them claim that Internet protocols are actually
going to move in that direction.
> There still seem to be at least three credible camps: ACE only, ACE
> transition, and UTF-8 only.
I don't see any serious support for the ACE-now-and-forever position.
The rest of us, the UTF-8 people and the ACE-now-UTF-8-later people, all
agree that some programs are going to have to be fixed. Sendmail's
address handling should be made 8-bit-clean, for example, and cc:Mail
should allow 255-byte local parts and 255-byte domain names.
The IDN WG can and should issue an immediate warning for implementors.
---Dan