-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- James Seng/Personal wrote: > Yes, I meant U+002E, U+3002, U+FF0E and also U+FF61 (I missed that..:-) > should be considered to be defined as label separator. > > Altho Nameprep has mention U+3002 (by prohibiting it), there is > inconsistency. e.g consider U+FF0E would actually normalized to U+002E > but U+3002 is prohibited.
U+FF0E is prohibited by nameprep-05, somewhat indirectly (it is normalised by NFKC to U+002E, which is prohibited). To be consistent, I suggest the following: - remove the prohibition step from nameprep, - map U+3002 to U+002E in the mapping step (this means that like U+FF0E, it can be used in a mailbox local part), - say that U+3002 and U+FF0E (and U+FF61 iff we map halfwidth characters) SHOULD be treated as a label separator when names are input, but MUST NOT be used to encode a label separator for transmission or storage, - define a syntax for international host strings (IHIs in the IDNS terminology) partly based on the current nameprep prohibitions. - -- 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/2akjkCAxeYt5gVAQEbLQf/fY5G2DDMzL64Qo9CYw5bewQKmv7hNh2E Y0Cbbyl8jBxIGZFAUJ4XotqxKpf5vP0RFABmSnX8TGRQd//wLELmgZTuXCb1ZEyY 2NNiR3cRiPLOJdR63ECVgZO1MUq+67nn08D5FoBtszr8kNED9d14Dn5kFpFGkF7U HytfShm1bPF54EfePRn5kB4oXiN+SBNt0TGl43WPSJ6xKSpTRpzycaZ4M8kzzb4x DqWmT/Irccj4uJVSpjELOb/FWya6SQkAZzTS/G12IYqJa/Yrn6H3D24J1N4Tj9Uh aZ+GbEPjqUVGej+zADXLSsxexGGuaHi2ZDUOrRQX8sQVYZ4LesNN7g== =du2H -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
