Subject: Re: [iucg] Mapping?

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 13:37:08 +0100

At 07:40 07/12/2009, Pete Resnick wrote:
>On 12/3/09 9:18 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> > On 02/12/09 10:06, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >
> >> One slightly more solid question for browsers is, would it be entirely
> >> crazy to have different mapping algorithms for typed-in domain names
> >> than for links followed?  There might be a locale-dependent mapping as
> >> well as a global mapping.  (I assume that having every established
> >> locale mapping installed would be complete craziness.)
> >>
> > IMO crazy. People type URLs into web browsers. Other people type URLs
> > into HTML documents. We can't have the same letters in those two
> > locations taking you to different places.
> >
>
>Generally staying out of this discussion, but: If we were considering to
>do this correctly (IMO), typed-in domains with DISALLOWED characters
>would get mapped, and links followed would get "Bite Me!" in big bold
>letters and the equivalent of an NXDOMAIN. Anything that takes typed
>input that maps should dynamically "correct" to PVALID things, and
>anything that is taking data should scream bloody murder if the domain
>labels are not all PVALID.
>
>Yes, I know I'm not convincing anyone of this. But it's the right thing
>to do.
>
>Back to my hidey-hole.

We are in agreement. I add this to the "recipes" for IDNA2010.

The real issue is that IDNA is conceptually wrong unless
1. you only use a single browser. This is why I can only accept it as 
a default.
2. you understant it as part of an interplus like reading of the 
Internet. "Application" then stands for a pseudo-network layer common 
application.

Otherwise you will possibly have a different location for each user 
application, depending on the libraries they have been compiled with.

Best.
jfc