Re: [idn] Re: stability

["Martin v. Löwis" <[e-mail]>]

Erik van der Poel wrote:
> If we do not correct the specs, more and more implementations will be 
> created and deployed, some implementing it one way, the others the other 
> way. It is hard to change something when a lot of implementations have 
> been deployed. This is why we have to act now (or soon). We have to nip 
> it in the bud.

Not sure what aspect you are referring to, however, I doubt that the
majority of the implementations cares too much about what the RFC says.
So whether the RFC is changed or not in a minor aspect has little
impact on reality.

In the specific case of normalization, I think most IDNA implementations
will rely on a normalization implementation created elsewhere - few
IDNA implementations will come with their own normalization routines.
This is because normalization is difficult to implement, so you rather
reuse than reinvent. Then, when the underlying normalization routine
is changed, the IDNA implementation also changes - most likely without
the author of the IDNA implementation (let alone its user) even knowing.
In that scenario, the implementor of IDNA has little control over what
specific incarnation of normalization is used.

Regards,
Martin