Subject: Re: [EAI] ulabel

From: Shawn Steele <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:58:31 +0000

> the user may confuse the old label and new label.
> but label and uLabel is easy to de differented.

Ulabel makes me wary because its use in IDN presumes there's an alabel.  So the connotations make me uneasy (whether that's reasonable or not).

So I'd prefer utf8-label:)

-Shawn

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:51:44 -0400

--On Tuesday, 13 July, 2010 21:58 +0000 Shawn Steele
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Ulabel makes me wary because its use in IDN presumes there's
> an alabel.  So the connotations make me uneasy (whether that's
> reasonable or not).
> 

I sort of agree with Shawn.  I have no strong preference, one
way or the other, for utf8-label.  But all IDNA2003 terminology
needs to come out of  the documents (remember that the ToASCII
and ToUnicode operations no longer exist) and "ulabel" and
"alabel" should be avoided unless they are spelled U-label and
A-label and used precisely the way IDNA2008 uses them.

Just my personal opinion, but I'll fight fairly hard to keep
terminology as clear, consistent, and precise as possible.

    john