Re: Question: full-width at

Hello Adam,

I agree very much with the general direction of staying away from
user interface issues. The less of these, the better.

Regards,    Martin.

At 05:07 03/02/14 +0000, Adam M. Costello wrote:
>These issues were considered for IDNA.  There are many characters that
>decompose to dot (like U+FE52 small full stop, U+2024 one dot leader) or
>decompose to strings containing dots (like U+2488 digit one full stop,
>U+33C2 square AM).  Therefore, if a whole domain name is normalized
>before being scanned for dots, it might result in a different number of
>labels than if it had not been normalized.  We discussed whether IDNA
>should require this pre-normalization.  Ultimately we decided that that
>was getting too far into user interface issues.  IDNA instead focuses
>almost entirely on individual labels, not whole domain names.  The
>one exception is to require that three particular dot-like non-ASCII
>characters be recognized as dots, just the three that we had reason to
>believe would be likely to be input by users trying to type dots.
>
>The IMAA draft follows this example.  It says as little as possible
>about entire mail addresses, and focuses on the local part.  The
>one exception is to require one particular at-like character to be
>recognized as an at-sign, the one that we have reason to believe is
>likely to be input by users trying to type at-signs.
>
>As for initial combining characters, the same question arose with IDNA.
>If a label begins with a combining character, will it combine with the
>preceeding dot?  This was considered a user-interface issue that IDNA
>should not address.
>
>AMC