[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] proposed i18n naming rules
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
James Seng/Personal wrote:
> What we need to do is defined U+3002 as a DNS label seperator
> *in addition* to U+002E. We should also consider U+FF2E to be
> consistent.
You mean U+FF0E (also U+FF61 if we map other halfwidth characters).
There are two questions here:
- whether U+3002 and U+FF0E should be allowed as a separator in
application layer encodings of a domain name (no, absolutely not)
- whether user input processes should be allowed or encouraged to map
U+3002 and U+FF0E to U+002E before encoding them (yes, and nameprep
already says that).
- --
David Hopwood <david.hopwood@zetnet.co.uk>
Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBO/2NIDkCAxeYt5gVAQFLeAgAsgRSfxIXjnX1MDEfXceQ0A3Q6WcgPQb+
xXySgt/8JAb4wFKE28QBfgFnGoKFZgTbNnhFgDdtALjNkA6WRh4E/3va606e9gWU
o74dC2VYVlnZF5IF7/M6Ox/4hyWe4Ecff7YVnw/ul058yUjtJMW7YXpWPUkfqocK
1qKXhUmpjTgvowvv5+HxwdUY4A641zvq2u9yKpMHtjQ7P+vrgxCfIvpzdcvMVIvO
43F/tBi+w0bSye6fdCWasFSJ/JtW0bCXOKaYYWp35XRxCOqXXwj40ddLWu8H9DsD
tOjMacTWUtD+f+dxWUQyveYdfbgFUJbOnMC/PdDfNzDeYGshojEsiQ==
=2zan
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----