At 1:53 PM -0800 2/1/02, Yves Arrouye wrote: > > >But they *are* allowed because the Server S uses Nameprep-08! >> >> I'm misunderstanding your scenario then. You said in nameprep-08, >> character U+XXXX has a "deleting mapping". I understood that as >> "character U+XXXX is now assigned but is prohibited". If that's not >> what you meant, please help me. > >I meant that Nameprep-08 maps the codepoint out (to reuse the language in >Nameprep). Let's say because this codepoint is a new variant selector, >another zero-width thingamagic, whatever.
OK, then I did understand what you were saying, but I don't understand the problem. You originally said: The interesting scenario is: Server S is on Nameprep-08 (where a deletion mapping has been introduced for codepoint U+XXXXX), Client A is on Nameprep-07 but his OS supports Unicode 4.0 and its IME generates U+XXXXX. Client A will then pas U+XXXXX unchanged (since it was unassigned when Nameprep-07's tables were generated) and Server S won't find a match, since its stored strings do not have U+XXXXX. Client A sends out a character that will never match something that could be stored in a name server under -07 (because it is unassigned) or under -08 or later (because it is mapped to nothing). Why would you expect the server to ever match it? What is the problem here that you see and that I don't? --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
