Re: [idn] IDNRA comments

[Dave Crocker]

At 12:03 PM 9/1/00 +0800, Maynard Kang wrote:
>I'm afraid I have to disagree. The transformation itself may be idempotent
>and reversible, but the fact that any arbitrary character set may be used in
>MIME content-transfer-encodings makes the domain name (not the string)
>non-unique.
>
>For example, the same abstract characters (zhongguo.gongsi in chinese, which
>means china.com), ideographically speaking, can be represented in at least
>three different ASCII-encoded strings using QP:




Always glad to find that there is symmetry in the world.  Now it is MY turn 
to apologize.

Indeed, the encoded form of Q-P permits alternative forms for the same source.

d/