does this mean my chances for ^B. are nil? :) --bill
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 12:07:01PM +0100, Patrik Fdltstrvm wrote: > On 6 mar 2009, at 21.54, Edward Lewis wrote: > > >And, from what I have heard, I believe "display issues" is at the > >heart of the problem. > > > >I'm sure Patrik is active in the IDNABIS WG. So if it is an issue, > >he'd have spoken about it. > > Yes, active there, following this list. > > >Still, seriously, all this aside, I doubt we will ever want > >"manpages.5" as a domain name. > > I think regarding digits in TLDs (or rather, non-letters), this is the > right time when one definitely should have the basic rule to not "add > something until it breaks", but instead, "only add things we do know > will not create any harm". And I think within those basic rules, we > should just say no to digits in TLDs. Anywhere. Or rather, every > character in a U-label in a TLD have to have an explicit directionality. > > I think it is time to not have a general rule "lets add something if > not proven that adding will create harm", but instead "lets add > something only if proven that it absolutely not does create any harm", > and then have the people that want certain dangerous characters in > there explain why it is safe. > > Patrik > > _______________________________________________ > DNSOP mailing list > DNSOP@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
