Why we can go directly to UTF-8 (was: Re: [idn] time to move)

[Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>]

Hello Keith,

Your conclusion

>we cannot make the jump directly to utf-8 - it is simply not practical.

isn't really a given. The main point in support of UTF-8 is that
the main drive for idns is coming from Web usage (http URIs).
Email is a very clear second, and all other usages don't have
1% of the pressure and urgency we have for Web usage. If we can
solve the problem for the Web and for Email, we get some time
to work on the rest. Even if we have a solution that in the
near term only works on the Web, that gives us quite some time.

This correlates extremely well with the fact that the average
Web browser is about the easiest place to introduce UTF-8 idns
(or any other idn solution, for that matter), and that the main
protocol there (HTTP) also should work nicely. Overall, it may
take ten years, but the things people want most will work much
sooner. Also, we are moving towards the final solution directly.

Also, I don't buy that once an ACE is deployed, we will come back
to work on UTF-8. Also, I don't buy that application protocols
will do the work to upgrade to UTF-8 internally if they can just
use ACE. Some might, but most won't. And the result would look
strangely backwards. On the other hand, if any particular
application (e.g. email) really thinks they need ACE, they
can do that on their own, and bear the consequences.

Also, if one puts together the protocol issues, the user interface
issues, and the management issues (zone files, scripts, and the like),
rather than just looking at the protocol issues, ACE is about as
impractical as anything else.

Regards,   Martin.


At 22:54 01/05/23 -0400, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I still fail the novel point of your second note, and I'm still
> > surprised that ACE could be considered as anything other than a
> > "temporary", and controversial fix, unless the problem scope has
> > changed without my being aware of it.
>
>it is less controversial because it is easier than the alternatives.
>
>it is perhaps also worthwhile to point out that fixes based on
>EDNS will not work so well through intermediaries.  so if we want
>a utf-8 query protcol in addition to the ACE query protocol
>that we need for compatibility with existing applications, then
>we might have to wait a while before it can actually be used.
>
>for me the choice is clear: ACE is necessary in the short term.
>a utf-8 query protocol might be desirable in the longer term,
>especially for new protocols that don't have the burden of
>backward compatibility.  but we have the luxury of defining
>the utf-8 query protocol after we get the ACE solution out the door.
>
>we cannot make the jump directly to utf-8 - it is simply not practical.
>
>Keith