Re: [gnso-idn-wg] Re: Banning CCHH anywhere in a label
This reduces to prohibiting two consecutive hyphens in a label, unless > they are in the second and third position (and that label would not be > rejected by any other restrictions on hyphens that already apply). > > Before recommending the introduction of this constraint it might be > advisable to determine the number of currently registered names that it > would invalidate (and/or to assess the scope of the grandfathering > effort > that would be required to retain them. Dear Chuck and Cary Cary, clearly already registered names that fit this pattern (probably ASCII + IDN in the IDN label with xn-- (or cc--) in the ASCII portion) will have to be grandfathered if we decide to ban. Probably not too many of them anyway. Also, I repeat I had only summarised the various thoughts, that the analaysis was preliminary and *more work had to be probably done to know the absolute consequences*. Chuck, Thanks Sophia for explaining but I confess that you have not convinced me that it is worth doing I was only providing a summary of the different voices from the IDN WG and given the *inconclusive views,* i had no group suggestion to offer but simply summarise the benefits/adverse issues that had been so far suggested. *I also said that even those who were open to banning, did not think it was a serious error if we did not ban. *Then at the end where I clearly marked, as you had suggested, I marked my personal view (diffrentiating from the group summary) as ering on the side of banning. But I also made clear I did not also see it as a serious problem if we did not ban. The decision is really upto the group. For myself, I think its okay - some sloppy programmers will have to re-program in the future, that's all - some, like Tina, felt they would deserve it.... So go ahead drop it. Sophia Cary, thanks for the nput. yes in that even , we then grandfather the old one, there are probly On 08/03/07, Cary Karp <ck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|