Re: [I18nrp] Mappings for IDNA2008 ?

[Asmus Freytag <[e-mail]>]

On 2/4/2019 4:40 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> And some of this, of course, is the result of attempts to be backward 
> compatible with IDNA2003, when the WG consensus was to have a 
> transition that fixed the problems in 2003.  The decision of UTS46 is 
> really to have that transition last essentially forever. This is, I 
> suspect, a difference in taste between the ietf and UTC communities 
> about how to make those trade-offs, but it has created part of the 
> problem.

To my reading the document calls out the "transition" vs. the "not 
transition" parts; that would seem to allow it in principle to 
prioritize the not-transition over time.

In the summary the goal is stated as "/allowing client software to 
access domains that are valid under either system./"

Now, this is a numbers game; if most IDNs are IDNA 2008, then "client 
software" doesn't need to presume the presence of IDN2003 labels.

Maybe something has changed on the ground since 2008 (the year this was 
first draft) and the UTC may feel differently about the "transitional" 
aspect of it. Time for a new foray?

Also, looking at the "differences from" section, it is expressed as 
differences from IDNA2003, and seems to follow IDNA2008. Not sure if 
that emphasis is new, but without some more concrete examples I somehow 
don't see the issue as big as it is being stated.

Has UTS#46 changed over time, perhaps?

A./

PS: from the dates of this, it appears all of this post-dates my active 
membership in the UTC.

>
> A
> -- 
> Andrew Sullivan
> Please excuse my clumbsy thums.
>
> On February 4, 2019 19:26:21 "John Levine" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[e-mail]> you 
>> write:
>>>> Are there any published IDNA2008 mappings?  As far as I can tell,
>>>> everyone uses one from UTS46 by default, and it's not very good.
>>> Examples of its badness, please.
>>
>> As I understand it:
>>
>> If you speak Turkish, the case folding is wrong.
>>
>> If you speak Persian, the joiners are wrong.
>>
>> If you speak Arabic, the mapping or lack thereof between
>> ASCII and Arabic digits is often wrong.
>>
>> If you speak Chinese, the whole thing is wrong because Chinese users
>> expect their ASCII pinyin to be turned into Chinese.
>>
>> IDNA 2008 said very clearly that good mappings depend on the user's
>> context, with the language being a large part of that context.
>>
>> R's,
>> John
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> i18nRP mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> i18nRP mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp
>