At 01:15 PM 7/16/02 -0400, Keith Moore wrote: > > Something else that makes me feel very uneasy about the current draft is > > the way it defines what constitutes a valid IDN in terms of algorithms > > described in two separate documents. This feels to me like putting the > > cart before the horse: I think this (i.e. what constitutes a valid IDN) is > > a fundamental idea which needs a crisp, easily understood description so > > that (for example) any future developments to embed IDNs directly into DNS > > don't get lumbered with legacy ACE code simply to determine what is a valid > > IDN. > >actually for the sake of backward compatibility it will probably be >necessary to restrict "native" IDNs to the set that than be encoded in ACE. >so defining valid IDNs in terms of ACE actually makes some sense. I accept that going forward, IDNs should probably be a subset of names supported by ACE. I didn't mean to say they should be a superset. My comment was aimed at the way the allowed form is specified with reference to the ACE algorithms. I think it should be possible to define a reasonably simple free-standing description of what constitutes an IDN (to be simple, such a description may have to be slightly more restrictive than that allowed by the ACE algorithm). #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>