Re: [I18nrp] Mappings for IDNA2008 ?

Asmus Freytag <> Tue, 05 February 2019 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4866512F1A2 for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:11:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key); domainkeys=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uBzwG5myBh0R for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:11:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17DD9130DD3 for <>; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:11:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dk12062016; t=1549329084; bh=+2emIMf0bWjvQIs+25eVn21no8R9BncjzVj4 af7skzg=; h=Received:Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date: User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Language: X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; b=MVR2xvD717ovcsvmGarJvhNTbTyBd6dJM adCtV+0GCJQuFcVH9t5IqVD3A8Qt8OLXoKtZI5mLMCV14p8f3TT1YO/dXjVIOP94s8k DBDsbBfu+TeNRO9q6ZsuvmHbZkDKkf37igtWVPWOfP2jrYy6/qu9yEO1xv0opAm8LEJ UXl6sgjSm3fZHZ2WR6wSf/nCkMQSHfYWeZZZCwNRblC9wH2HXnua34j8Vd9T0gDoYVI gPfvY3n7e5fYtoByARLVlkqPIMfo9cOMZk5gYwk+TgOCbJwFgtZYkPdfwRBBHSkYg49 2UEs8phfl4NxERWN6aDIdsY6BSv1eNHN6MscvCq0w==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk12062016;; b=GEGMfDqzmnEz7DynbHGnHdMRmdnC7lSBxumK99GhIw+NuYD1kifT62UkdDhi6chTdk8B3M8411DfyAiBKjBAnrOqb0WnktkiJo7I9oj3Ih6GyXlnEBi5HFcf1oCfGflKsmpMqpkUhBY4d3qsZs6y2eL3AeAUF+B6Q0P0Zx/e4g/AbgeUdgVKjxS+JMr6lNPEJycB3NkB+2H3hIjkXqA352crMDekteIosVIRp/o+VazNNaPjZtm1WApjBjvsAb5b1LA2fuBTyzE3mjHMOsldO+M52mTzQODzIexbiQVP4MeX/RUOFsowCUTeLR0FatOXZknP5he/Dpgl1OhygQ/TJQ==; h=Received:Subject:To:References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Language:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4) (envelope-from <>) id 1gqpGl-000CzJ-6O for; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 20:11:23 -0500
References: <20190205002555.1AFBA200DC1DB1@ary.qy> <>
From: Asmus Freytag <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:11:24 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------F0E82DAF20BF02A6E2FE1E27"
Content-Language: en-US
X-ELNK-Trace: 464f085de979d7246f36dc87813833b28d93432b0f0788b9bdb6824c4692df1a31264146892d118b350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [I18nrp] Mappings for IDNA2008 ?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Review Procedures <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 01:11:28 -0000

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?


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" <> wrote:
>> In article <> 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
> _______________________________________________
> i18nRP mailing list