Re: nameprep vs. stringprep

> I'll have to wait to see what the impact of this change is, but on the
> surface, the immediate affect will be that this draft will no longer be
> able to encourage the creation of stringprep profiles for specific
> resource record owner names and RR data. Until now, domain names which
> require syntaxes that were not compatible with nameprep could create their
> own stringprep profiles, but if the prohibitions go into stringprep, then
> these domain names will have to be defined separately from the stringprep
> family altogether. At that point, I'm not sure what value stringprep has
> over just going back to a monolithic nameprep.

Eric,

The above is not the intent.

The intent is that stringprep define a bunch of tables and the stringprep
profile then selects which table(s) of prohibited characters and mappings
it want to use from stringprep. And if need be a stringprep profile can
also add its own prohibitions and mappings although.

Hence we get easier reuse of the tables of code points - nothing more
and nothing less.

  Erik