[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:
> Yes, I meant U+002E, U+3002, U+FF0E and also U+FF61 (I missed that..:-)
> should be considered to be defined as label separator.
>
> Altho Nameprep has mention U+3002 (by prohibiting it), there is
> inconsistency. e.g consider U+FF0E would actually normalized to U+002E
> but U+3002 is prohibited.
U+FF0E is prohibited by nameprep-05, somewhat indirectly (it is
normalised by NFKC to U+002E, which is prohibited).
To be consistent, I suggest the following:
- remove the prohibition step from nameprep,
- map U+3002 to U+002E in the mapping step (this means that like
U+FF0E, it can be used in a mailbox local part),
- say that U+3002 and U+FF0E (and U+FF61 iff we map halfwidth characters)
SHOULD be treated as a label separator when names are input, but
MUST NOT be used to encode a label separator for transmission or
storage,
- define a syntax for international host strings (IHIs in the
IDNS terminology) partly based on the current nameprep prohibitions.
- --
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/2akjkCAxeYt5gVAQEbLQf/fY5G2DDMzL64Qo9CYw5bewQKmv7hNh2E
Y0Cbbyl8jBxIGZFAUJ4XotqxKpf5vP0RFABmSnX8TGRQd//wLELmgZTuXCb1ZEyY
2NNiR3cRiPLOJdR63ECVgZO1MUq+67nn08D5FoBtszr8kNED9d14Dn5kFpFGkF7U
HytfShm1bPF54EfePRn5kB4oXiN+SBNt0TGl43WPSJ6xKSpTRpzycaZ4M8kzzb4x
DqWmT/Irccj4uJVSpjELOb/FWya6SQkAZzTS/G12IYqJa/Yrn6H3D24J1N4Tj9Uh
aZ+GbEPjqUVGej+zADXLSsxexGGuaHi2ZDUOrRQX8sQVYZ4LesNN7g==
=du2H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----