Re: [idn] WG last call documents

["Eric A. Hall" <ehall@ehsco.com>]

"Adam M. Costello" wrote:

> > when it should be the opposite.
> 
> I'm afraid I disagree.  People have said in the past that IDNA is
> pointless if users always see the ACE form.

I'm not saying that the ACE form is the only form that should EVER be
used, what I'm saying is that the default mandate is dysfunctional.

The only thing that IDNA provides is a backwards-compatible encoding. The
benefit will come when the protocols and data-formats are extended to
support it. I know this violates the religious doctrine section that
promises milk honey and sunshine for everybody immediately. Sorry.

But hey, prove me wrong. I've given you plenty of examples, so you should
be able to come up with one. Please list the RFC822 header fields that
IDNA should be transliterated versus the header fields that should not be
transliterated. Any such list will by nature not conform with the default
mandate. The mandate is dysfunctional. You cannot prove otherwise.

-- 
Eric A. Hall                                        http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols          http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/