From: CE Whitehead (cewcathar@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 01 2010 - 18:51:39 CST
Hi, sorry for jumping in.
Mark's solution (to automatically offer both labels) is o.k. with me (I don't know if one could be resold later without the other; perhaps but obviously I do not wheel and deal in domain names) but I do feel like others on the list that both ways of writing "ss" should be mapped and mapped to the same punycode realization.
However, I am confused: does not "unmapped" mean mapped to nil and is it not the problem then that the single character ß (as opposed to the "ss") will still be mapped to nil (as is described in http://unicode.org/reports/tr46/tr46-2.html#Mapping):
"2.She visits her friend Bob, and checks her bank statement on his browser. His browser supports IDNA2008. Under those rules, http://www.sparkasse-gießen.de is also valid, but converts to a different Punycode domain name in http://www.xn--sparkasse-gieen-2ib.de. This can lead to a different site with the IP address 101.123.145.167, a spoof site." (Thus would not the registrar have to also make sure that the registration for nil and not just ss was identical? Sorry to ask a stupid question.)
As for Indic digits, Eastern (Persian, etc.) and Western (Arabic), and particularly for the confusable ones -- why is not a similar solution being considered for these? (That is, have the registrar make sure both registrations are identical, the one containing the Persian digits and the same name but with Arabic digits? Or is that being done? Or is it not feasable? [I admit I do not know all that is going on with domain name registrars and would appreciate it if someone would point me to the recommendations for the various registrars to follow; thanks; but apparently the registrars do not have to follow the recommendations anyway -- which makes no sense as ICANN accredits the registrars and can force them to follow the recommendations, right?)
Best,
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com
________________________________
> Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:31:47 +0200
> From: jpblankert@zonnet.nl
> To: mark@macchiato.com
> CC: duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp; markus.icu@gmail.com; unicode@unicode.org;
> klant@stichtingburnout.nl; jpBlankert@zonnet.nl
> Subject: ss and ß
>
> Nice thought...on the other hand: would it be honest to automatically
> double the worth of existing 'Straße.de' owners?
>
> They could sell off Strasse.de and re-start exploiting Straße.de
> (selling off: it are 2 different punycodes, difficult to forbid an
> owner to sell one of them).
>
> Your solution is known to me in the case of Taiwan, IDN, there they
> choose the solution: if you get the name in simplified Chinese, you get
> it in traditional Chinese as well.
>
> The joiners I have to study, I found
> http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Chrome/thread?tid=64832607ce9c5637&hl=en
>
> Above is not mentioned to trigger an ethical discussion on 'doubling
> the ownership or not', it was just a different kind of thought to your
> proposed solution, for which: thanks. Am curious how registrants will
> go about it. Nice to have found this mailing list, because otherwise I
> would have nobody to discuss this with.
>
> Br,
>
> Philippe
>
> On 30-10-2010 20:52, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> Whether or not it was a good idea to have ß in domain names
> (post-mapping) is moot at this point, given IDNA2008. The key will be
> to manage the transition well. For many years, client software
> (browsers, etc.) will be converting ß to ss in domain names. To
> prevent serious problems, it's recommended that any registrar that
> allows ß to do the following:
>
> If someone attempts to register a label with any ß, check if the
> corresponding label with all ss's is registered.
>
> * If so, reject the registration unless the registrant is
> precisely the same.
> * If not, automatically give the registrant both labels.
>
> That way both new and old browsers will continue to work, and security
> and operability problems will be avoided: (1) avoids security problems,
> while (2) gives correct results for both new and old client software.
>
> If client software knows that a registrar follows this policy, then it
> can then allow ß to be unmapped for that registrar.
>
> The same goes each of the 4 transition characters: ß, ς, and the two joiners.
>
> Mark
>
> — Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 04:57, "Martin J. Dürst"
>> wrote:
> On 2010/10/30 9:17, Markus Scherer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:57 PM, JP Blankert (thuis& PC based)<
> jpblankert@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
> Dear unicode.org interested,
>
> I discovered at least 1 flaw in the converter tools I used so far (as
> Verisign's IDN to punycode converter): none of the ones I checkes recognises
> the German character
>
> ß
>
> (the sz, as from 'Straße' )
>
> correctly, the sign is always dissolved in ss.
>
>
> This is standard IDNA2003 behavior.
>
> Yes.
>
> It is usually desirable
>
> It is desirable in searching, but it wasn't desirable in domain names.
> The reason it got into IDNA2003 is because the IETF was looking for
> data to do case mapping beyond ASCII, and the data available from the
> Unicode consortium included the 'ß' -> ss mapping, and the IETF didn't
> want to change it because they feared that might start all kinds of
> discussions on all kinds of (essentially unrelated) issues.
>
>
> because a) many
> German speakers are unsure about when exactly to use ß vs. ss,
>
> Yes, but for many names, it's either one or the other. Essentially, no rules.
>
>
> b) the
> spelling reform a few years ago changed the rules,
>
> Yes. They got way easier and more straightforward.
>
>
> and c) Switzerland does
> not use ß at all in German.
>
> Yes. But that's no reason to take it away from those who use it.
> (at least myself being Swiss I don't think so)
>
>
> This means that for most purposes it is
> counter-productive (and can be a security risk) to distinguish ß and ss.
>
> Well, it can be a security risk to distinguish between 'i' and 'l' and
> '1', and so on, and nevertheless, it's being done for good reasons all
> the time.
>
>
> IDNA2008, an incompatible update, by itself does not map characters.
>
> What's more important, IDNA2008 allows the 'ß' as is.
>
>
> UTS #46
> provides a compatibility bridge for both IDNA2003 and IDNA2008, and the ß
> behavior is an option there.
>
> Yes. The basic idea in TR #46 is that in a first phase, 'ß' is mapped
> to 'ss' for lookup, to give registries with German clients a chance to
> their clients to register true 'ß' where necessary. After that, the
> mapping can be dropped, so as in the (somewhat distant) future to allow
> for cases where a name with 'ß' and a name with 'ss' are resolved
> differently.
>
> Regards, Martin.
>
>
> --
> #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp
> mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Geen virus gevonden in het binnenkomende-bericht.
> Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
> Versie: 9.0.864 / Virusdatabase: 271.1.1/3227 - datum van uitgifte: 10/30/10 08:34:00
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 01 2010 - 18:54:46 CST