-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- James Seng/Personal wrote: > What we need to do is defined U+3002 as a DNS label seperator > *in addition* to U+002E. We should also consider U+FF2E to be > consistent.
You mean U+FF0E (also U+FF61 if we map other halfwidth characters). There are two questions here: - whether U+3002 and U+FF0E should be allowed as a separator in application layer encodings of a domain name (no, absolutely not) - whether user input processes should be allowed or encouraged to map U+3002 and U+FF0E to U+002E before encoding them (yes, and nameprep already says that). - -- David Hopwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/ RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5 0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01 Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBO/2NIDkCAxeYt5gVAQFLeAgAsgRSfxIXjnX1MDEfXceQ0A3Q6WcgPQb+ xXySgt/8JAb4wFKE28QBfgFnGoKFZgTbNnhFgDdtALjNkA6WRh4E/3va606e9gWU o74dC2VYVlnZF5IF7/M6Ox/4hyWe4Ecff7YVnw/ul058yUjtJMW7YXpWPUkfqocK 1qKXhUmpjTgvowvv5+HxwdUY4A641zvq2u9yKpMHtjQ7P+vrgxCfIvpzdcvMVIvO 43F/tBi+w0bSye6fdCWasFSJ/JtW0bCXOKaYYWp35XRxCOqXXwj40ddLWu8H9DsD tOjMacTWUtD+f+dxWUQyveYdfbgFUJbOnMC/PdDfNzDeYGshojEsiQ== =2zan -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
