Subject: Re: [I18n-discuss] Mappings for IDNA2008 ?

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Feb 2019 17:57:17 -0500

>> It's been a decade since IDNA2008 and I have yet to see any language-specific
>> mappings at all.
>
> Hmm...do you say that you have not for example seen any LOCALE specific case
> folding functions?

Haven't seen any used for IDNA mapping.  Have you?

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

---

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Feb 2019 17:57:59 -0500

>  This is *exactly* why IDNA2008 do ***NOT*** include any mapping mechanisms.
>  IDNA2008 do not care what mappings are used. That is up to the
>  application/context/whatever.

Yes, except that as I may have said once or twice, since the mappings 
don't exist, everyone uses UTS46 and in practice it's not much better than 
2003.

We've really dropped the ball here.

Regards,

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Feb 2019 10:28:17 -0500

In article <[email-masked]> you write:
>I get your general point. My general point is that 2003 was not idempotent 
>and therefore any backward compatible transition mechanism necessarily 
>fails the same precondition, QED.

TR46 appears to think they have solved that problem by having a
transitional mode which does the 2003 stuff, and the nontransitional
mode that doesn't.  As far as I know the nontransitional mapping is
idempotent, but I haven't checked in detail.

Assuming that's true, then the proposal for f'(f(x)) for a local mapping
is trivially OK since f' can do everything and depend on f(x) to pass the
rssults through unchanged.  But I don't think that's what the plan was.

Regards,
John Levine, [email-masked], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly