na... the ^B. is for the visually impared. the DNS can talk! (and it does meet your "explict directionality" concern.)
actually, I have a fundamental disagreement w/ your logic. I think that your general rule of "only add if proven to create no harm" or infering "dangerous" - are on the slippery slope of stifling inovation. IDN's by their very nature are proven to create harm... yet we are doing them :) i think the better rule is, add something if it creates value. --bill On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 03:13:44PM +0100, Patrik Fdltstrvm wrote: > 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 > > > >>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 add > >>something 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 > > > _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
