Re: [idn] URL encoding in html page

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@neteka.com>]

Its good to here from you James saying that it is smarter to upgrade to UTF8
than to downgrade to ACE.
Although we are not requiring your UTF128 just yet, but I absolutely agree
that the IDN protocol should provision for such upgrades.  Using IDN/EDNS
with versioning, we can provision this.
Glad you are back on the right track James!
Edmon


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Seng/Personal" <jseng@pobox.org.sg>
> > Edmon... I think it means every "human readable" UI has to be downgrade
> not
> > upgrade... we should have something readable that converts to something
> > unreadable so that web-designer dont know what they are putting in as
URL
> > : )
>
> UTF-8 does not imply "human readable". It means it is encoded in UTF-8.
> Dont continue confuse folk display and encoding.

No one is trying to confuse.  What we mean is that all application that
displays domain names intended for human reading will have to be changed.
And this is a very large number of applications.
>
> But I agree that ACE is one form of "downgrading" but the target is for
> machine readability, not human.
>
> > > This is a revealing point you have pointed out Adam.  While you and
some
> > ACE
> > > "everywhere" advocates maintain that ACE "everywhere" requires the
least
> > > upgrade, this seems to jump back out at yourselves that afterall, it
is
> > not
> > > as small a job as it was advertised.
>
> In IETF, when face with two proposals, we do engineering trade-off.
>
> Therefore, no one actually say it is "a small a job". Most say IDNA is a
> easier task.
>
> > ACE will work with "EXISTING" systems but ALL client end(browser, MUA,
> etc)
> > and SOME server(Apache, etc) end software actually needs to upgrade in
> order
> > to be able to recognize IDN and convert it to ACE back and forth, unless
> we
> > want to say that www.ietf.org that we are using nowadays is IDN already
> : )
> >
> > On the other hand, we see a lot of applications is moving towards the
> > support of UTF8/Unicode on the client side, and this is going to be the
> > future anyways... so why not just upgrade the server software, with one
> > server software upgraded it will serve many many users... I dont
> understand
> > why no one see this simple math : )
>
> You point out the cruial pros & cons over the ACE vs UTF-8. The differ in
> opinion is the last part with you dont understand.
>
> My take? If it were up to me, why stick to UTF-8? I'll say lets do one
> single upgrade to 128bit, lets called it UTF-128, just in case.
>
> -James Seng
>
>
>