"Eric A. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For a given domain name slot (protocol element, structured data > > field, function argument, etc), the governing specification...does > > not dictate what you may do with the name after you've read it. > > True for message fields, false for the loosely-coupled data-types > which are independent of a particular of any particular protocol > message (email addresses, Message-ID, URLs, etc).
I'm not getting your point at all. Apparently you are concerned that there exist scenarios where ToUnicode ought to be forbidden/discouraged, but the IDNA draft allows/encourages it. Maybe if you described a specific example of such a scenario, I'd start to understand. AMC
