Re: [idn] IDNs in email message bodies

[Patrik Fältström <paf@cisco.com>]

At 21.03 -0800 01-03-25, Eric A. Hall wrote:
>Should we be answering these questions or should the question be raised in
>a document and left for the respective WGs to answer?

That is the current plan I have as AD for the area with the most protocols.

IAB do though have a workshop on internationalization later in April, 
and I know this more meta/process issue will be discussed.

What I as editor of the IDNA document want to have out of this 
discussion though is example of wording which is needed to be added 
to explain that conversion should happen only for display -- which 
seems to be the view of this wg. This was also the outcome of a 
discussion between wg and bof chairs in the Applications Area.

I.e. if the conversion can happen closer to display or closer to 
resolver, it should happen closer to display. "It is a display issue 
only" was a statement I heard several times last week.

I also heard that it is extremely important that a user which (for 
example) receive a domainname which is in ACE, can cut&paste, reply 
(to an email) etc. And that these abilities are more important than 
correct display. This means for me that if an application detects the 
ace, and is "unsure" of how to display some of the characters -- it 
is better if the application does NOT convert from ace. This so it is 
sure that the domainname is not destroyed. Also, if the conversion is 
happening only for display, the underlying storage in memory can 
still have the non-converted ace all the time, so regardless of what 
is displayed, it is the ace which is copied and pasted etc.

I might be wrong in what I heard, but understand that just the 
existence of the discussion in the corridors makes some wording be 
needed in the IDNA document.

I am happy to receive proposed wordings which clearify what this wg want.

     Patrik