Re: [idn] Who supports UDNS (ACE+UTF-8)

["James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>]

> > Perhaps if we use UCS directly then the "count" can actually be the
> > number of Unicode code points and every language will have 63
> > "character" spaces to use.
>
> Allowing for 63 characters (instead of 63 octets) per label by way of
EDNS
> would certainly help to motivate adoption.

There is no reason why there is a 63 octet limit in Domain Names, other
than by designed, someone decided that 63 octet is sufficient and able
to fix into the UDP packet.

Thus, *if* we have the opportunity to 'fix' this, why do we need to
change to 63 Unicode character limit too? Why not more just in case?

Secondly, "chair" in English which take up 5 Unicode character would
only take two Unicode ideographic character in Chinese. Thus, is 63
Unicode character 'fair' for all? This is a topic I hate to dive into
here.

> I think that it is probably also feasible to adopt a "continuation"
syntax
> in ACE as part of a backwards compatibility. Perhaps a special byte
> sequence (like soft-hyphen) could be reserved for this purpose,
allowing a
> pair of ACE labels to be interpreted as a single label.

This is a proposal that pops up from time to time.

-James Seng