On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 5:16 PM Peter Saint-Andre <stpe...@stpeter.im> wrote:
> > That is what works. > > Well, IDNA2008 works for many applications and UTS-46 works for many > other applications. I'm not as certain as you are that one of these > technologies works and the other does not. Can you produce evidence > that, by implication, IDNA2008 does not work? What problems does it not > solve? > That's the dispute, right? UTS-46 allows more names than IDNA2008, so it will be more interoperable, and it is popular. If you look at this table, that seems correct: https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#Table_IDNA_Comparisons I am not a fan of works of fiction in standards, and I think UTS-46 is closer to the truth here. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list Uta@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
