Re: [idn] Some comments

["D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>]

Patrik writes:
> Also, I saw someone saying "the rest of us like UTF-8" (or something 
> like that). I would say that there is definitly not consensus for use 
> of UTF-8 instead of an ACE. The contrary.

What I actually said was ``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.''

What's your position, Patrik? Do you want to look around in a future
UTF-8 world and see that the Internet is using some clumsy ACE? Do you
think that Sendmail will never have to be fixed? Do you object to the
IDN WG warning implementors that programs should be 8-bit-clean?

> Non-decoded data is not as problematic, because then information has 
> not been lost during encoding and transport.

That's what Keith said for years about Quoted-Printable. He ignored the
screams of the users who, in fact, DID NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION.

(Keith's favorite airline: ``Yes, sir, we know we shredded your luggage,
but it's all here! Take some time and sew it back together. By the way,
we don't shred English luggage.'')

The goal is not merely to ensure that, in theory, all the information
has been preserved. The goal is to actually _provide_ the information to
the user.

> Also, for the n:time, for UTF-8 to work we need to change a large 
> number of protocols, intermediaries/middleware boxes, firewalls etc 
> because the change to the protocols is quite large.

What matters is the software. The protocols can change for free if the
software already supports the new protocols.

UTF-8, with nameprep handled close to the user as I described, works
with many existing 8-bit-clean pieces of software. ACE-now-and-forever
and ACE-now-UTF-8-later would impose much larger software upgrade costs.

---Dan