In
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)60(_dot_)0310270838030(_dot_)13643(_at_)shiva1(_dot_)cac(_dot_)washington(_dot_)edu>
Mark Crispin <mrc(_at_)cac(_dot_)washington(_dot_)edu> writes:
Here's a start at such a statement:
As presently constituted, email addresses are limited to the 26 Latin
alphabetics, 10 digits, and a limited number of special characters in the
ASCII character set. There is a growing need to use additional
characters, specifically Latin characters with diacriticals and non-Latin
characters, in email addresses to better serve the needs of the
multi-national Internet community. However, the restrictions of ASCII
email addresses have served as a "lingua franca" since everybody can enter
ASCII email addresses, and there is an ongoing need for this as well. The
problem to be solved is the resolution of these two needs.
Is that talking about the local-part of the domain-part of an email
address, or both?
I thought IDNA (ugly as it is) was now a done thing as regards the
domain-part, so can we be clear that this is not a "let us have the IDNA
debate again" thing (or be clear that it is, if it is). OTOH, means of
ensuring the phasing out of any need for people to have to see or type in
raw punycode should definitely be on topic.
I see from later contributions to this thread that it is indeed mainly
about local-parts, but this needs to be made clear before the BOF get
under way.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave,
CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5