Re: Re: idn-uri document

At 15:22 06/11/02, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > But much the same argument applies to the type of use Martin
> > contemplates.   IDNA, as written, is _one_ protocol.  It is not
> > a toolkit for building other protocols, nor is it a a set of
> > profiles that other protocols can adopt.  Those two may be much
> > the same thing in practice.  As soon as we say "you should use
> > that operation from IDNA, but without some particular step" we
> > head down a slippery slope.  That is especially true because
> > IDNA contains (or appears to contain) a good deal of normative
> > text outside the particular of, e.g., ToASCII.  It is not clear
> > whether "...explicitly state that one should apply ToASCII
> > without the punycode step (and other steps..." includes some,
> > all, or none of those textual specifications.  And, whatever
> > choice is made, "do just what is done over there, except..." is
> > a poor way to do protocol specification and introduces some of
> > the worst properties of profiling without any of the benefits of
> > being explicit about what can, and cannot, be profiled.
>
>Which is why I welcome folks that try to use IDN(A) is new protocols
>to share their experience. That way we can collectively learn about the
>actual issues that folks run into and use that to improve on the way
>IDNA is specified.
>
>In addition to the URI side there is also the registry side where I
>think there is active development today. And I hope that somebody will
>try to explore new protocols that will not use an ACE for the IDNs
>so that we can collectively understand the issues in that space as well.

Would there be a test nameprep C code to help with test
registry tools? I suppose there are some traps to avoid.
jfc