YangWoo Ko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The specifications seems quite clear on what should happen here -- if >> there is no negotiation, ACE should be used. TTY MUAs therefor must >> display ACE strings as there is no negotiation between xterm and the >> MUA that an IDNA string is being displayed. > > Dear Simon, > > Oops. Then I will encounter very ugly environment in the near future. > > Dear idn-ers, > > Please tell me that simon's understanding is wrong. Negotiation in IDNA > draft seems either poorly documented or poorly understood.
I agree the specifications aren't clear, but at least Patrik F�ltstr�m answered clearly in another part of this thread, unless I misunderstood him again -- which isn't unlikely, as I fail to locate the text in the IDNA specification that back the claims made. From <35817839.1030912013@localhost>: Patrik F�ltstr�m wrote: > Simon Josefsson wrote: > > If the > strings are to be ACE encoded or raw encoded is not specified anywhere > as far as I can tell, and different implementations will chose > different strategies. IDNA says that if no negotiation exists between two entities which exchange domain names between them, ACE encoding should be used. There is no difference between a protocol which uses IP or the paste buffer. It is the same thing. > Simon Josefsson wrote: > > In general, cut'n'paste of IDNA in the real world is not well defined, > since IDNA only solves the IDNA problem for Unicode, and the real > world isn't running Unicode everywhere. IDNA do specify how to encode a domain name which is to be passed between two applications. If there is no negotiation, ACE encoded Unicode is to be used.
