Question re: wording in UASG 007
UASG 007 version 9, page 24 reads: "Robust UA-ready software and services may be able to handle and treat all these formats identically, even those which are not RFC-compliant. Nevertheless, UA-ready software should not generate true EAI email addresses only." Should this rather be "should generate true EAI email addresses only", without the negation? This section is discussing the handling of IDN-style vs. EAI addresses and seems to be driving at Postel's Law, so I find the "not" confusing, but I may be misunderstanding. For reference, I'm looking at this document: https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/UASG007-version-9-2017-02-02.pd.... The translated versions say the same. Thanks, Evan -- Evan Hanson Analyst and Programmer Catalyst IT - Open Source Technologists DDI: +64 4 803 2415 // Tel: +64 4 449 2267 // www.catalyst.net.nz
In article <dadad825-21ec-f904-74f4-f2776b7f7b60@catalyst.net.nz> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=- -=-=-=-=-=-
UASG 007 version 9, page 24 reads:
"Robust UA-ready software and services may be able to handle and treat all these formats identically, even those which are not RFC-compliant. Nevertheless, UA-ready software should not generate true EAI email addresses only."
Should this rather be "should generate true EAI email addresses only", without the negation?
That whole section needs to be rewritten to about a sentence that says that you cannot rewrite local parts so don't even try. I really wish the document did not mention punycode at all, rather saying A-labels in the DNS context, because it just confuses people. R's, John
participants (2)
-
Evan Hanson -
John Levine