Re: [idn] Re: idn-uri document

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> But much the same argument applies to the type of use Martin
> contemplates.   IDNA, as written, is _one_ protocol.  It is not
> a toolkit for building other protocols, nor is it a a set of
> profiles that other protocols can adopt.  Those two may be much
> the same thing in practice.  As soon as we say "you should use
> that operation from IDNA, but without some particular step" we
> head down a slippery slope.  That is especially true because
> IDNA contains (or appears to contain) a good deal of normative
> text outside the particular of, e.g., ToASCII.  It is not clear
> whether "...explicitly state that one should apply ToASCII
> without the punycode step (and other steps..." includes some,
> all, or none of those textual specifications.  And, whatever
> choice is made, "do just what is done over there, except..." is
> a poor way to do protocol specification and introduces some of
> the worst properties of profiling without any of the benefits of
> being explicit about what can, and cannot, be profiled.

Which is why I welcome folks that try to use IDN(A) is new protocols
to share their experience. That way we can collectively learn about the 
actual issues that folks run into and use that to improve on the way 
IDNA is specified.

In addition to the URI side there is also the registry side where I
think there is active development today. And I hope that somebody will
try to explore new protocols that will not use an ACE for the IDNs
so that we can collectively understand the issues in that space as well.

  Erik