On 7 mar 2009, at 14.56, [email protected] wrote:
does this mean my chances for ^B. are nil? :)
Go for it!But I think foo^H^H^Hbar is more interesting as a label. Maybe with a ^G in there as well.
Patrik
--bill On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:07:01PM +0100, Patrik Fdltstrvm wrote:On 6 mar 2009, at 21.54, Edward Lewis wrote:And, from what I have heard, I believe "display issues" is at the heart of the problem. I'm sure Patrik is active in the IDNABIS WG. So if it is an issue, he'd have spoken about it.Yes, active there, following this list.Still, seriously, all this aside, I doubt we will ever want "manpages.5" as a domain name.I think regarding digits in TLDs (or rather, non-letters), this is theright time when one definitely should have the basic rule to not "add something until it breaks", but instead, "only add things we do know will not create any harm". And I think within those basic rules, we should just say no to digits in TLDs. Anywhere. Or rather, everycharacter in a U-label in a TLD have to have an explicit directionality.I think it is time to not have a general rule "lets add something if not proven that adding will create harm", but instead "lets addsomething only if proven that it absolutely not does create any harm",and then have the people that want certain dangerous characters in there explain why it is safe. Patrik _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
