Re: [dnsext] the same in old days, was making names the same NEED protocol changes?

[Eric Brunner-Williams <[e-mail]>]

<snip>
>> If we decide we can change the application client, this whole problem
>> becomes pretty straightforward. Either adopt the 'did you mean'
>> pointer style approach or allow domains to nominate mappings of one
>> charset to another.
>>
> Please do not use "mappings of one charset to another" to represent
> this problem.   At this point, we are all mostly talking about the
> Unicode character set and how to map labels derived from sequences of
> Unicode characters.

well ... it is the case that we have distinct ranges of values, 
subsetting within the Unicode character repertoire, and have, or have 
considered, rules concerning labels composed of values from distinct 
regions.

the latin vs arabic vs indic digit discussion is one example with 
three very modest subsets of that repertoire. should "mixing digits" 
be allowed, pro and con claims followed, invoking directionality or 
similarity, depending upon the choices of subsets to be . there are 
other examples.

so it isn't incorrect to reference, though perhaps charset is 
misleading, mappings from one subset of values to another, in the same 
repertoire. the subsets may, or may not, be contiguous and disjoint, 
or consist of a common set, and two or more point-wise disjoint 
subsets of a single additional set (sc/tc).

-e

_______________________________________________
dnsext mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsext