From: Tex Texin (tex@i18nguy.com)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 03:09:20 CDT
Markus, Mike, Jungshik,
Thanks for the info on the encoding schemes. I know about the ICU
implementation too.
My question was really directed at the issue of which characters are used or
needed in names, and whether NFKC normalized strings are adequate. I did get
some private assurance that they are, or at least that normalizing out
compatibility characters would not be a problem. Whereas there are (too) many
encoding schemes, only the IDNA specs identify characters that should not be
used and would cause confusion. That aspect of the algorithm is what makes it
useful for this application.
I also heard privately that the GNU implementation was being used and that the
current version works well.
thanks for the feedback.
tex
Markus Scherer wrote:
>
> Another encoding, standardized for much longer, is what IMAP uses for mailbox names. I think it does
> not have a standard charset name, but it's described in one of the IMAP RFCs. It's a modified UTF-7,
> modified to make it filename-friendly and deterministic, and may fit the bill. It's certainly useful
> to squeeze Unicode filenames into ASCII. I am sure there are many libraries with an implementation
> (ICU has one, see convrtrs.txt).
>
> By the way, ICU also implements IDNA and generic StringPrep.
>
> Best regards,
> markus
>
> http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/convexp?conv=IMAP-mailbox-name&b=&s=ALLÄ
-- ------------------------------------------------------------- Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World -------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 13 2004 - 03:11:30 CDT