Re: Document Status?

YangWoo Ko <[email protected]> writes:

>> The specifications seems quite clear on what should happen here -- if
>> there is no negotiation, ACE should be used.  TTY MUAs therefor must
>> display ACE strings as there is no negotiation between xterm and the
>> MUA that an IDNA string is being displayed.
>
> Dear Simon,
>
> Oops. Then I will encounter very ugly environment in the near future.
>
> Dear idn-ers,
>
> Please tell me that simon's understanding is wrong. Negotiation in IDNA
> draft seems either poorly documented or poorly understood.

I agree the specifications aren't clear, but at least Patrik Fältström
answered clearly in another part of this thread, unless I
misunderstood him again -- which isn't unlikely, as I fail to locate
the text in the IDNA specification that back the claims made.  From
<35817839.1030912013@localhost>:

Patrik Fältström wrote:

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> If the
> strings are to be ACE encoded or raw encoded is not specified anywhere
> as far as I can tell, and different implementations will chose
> different strategies.

IDNA says that if no negotiation exists between two entities which exchange
domain names between them, ACE encoding should be used. There is no
difference between a protocol which uses IP or the paste buffer. It is the
same thing.

> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
> In general, cut'n'paste of IDNA in the real world is not well defined,
> since IDNA only solves the IDNA problem for Unicode, and the real
> world isn't running Unicode everywhere.

IDNA do specify how to encode a domain name which is to be passed between
two applications. If there is no negotiation, ACE encoded Unicode is to be
used.