[spec] IRIs, IDNs, and all that international jazz

[bie]

On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 03:29:48PM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> As I explained in
> <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/2020/004178.html>, I do
> not think that backward compatibility should be a goal, since Gemini
> is still experimental. Once the specification is "officially" "final",
> this will be different. AFAIK, it is not the case (otherwise, what
> would be the point of the [spec] topic?)

In that case you should read the first part of the current
specification:

"Although not finalised yet, further changes to the specification are
likely to be relatively small. You can write code to this
pseudo-specification and be confident that it probably won't become
totally non-functional due to massive changes next week, but you are
still urged to keep an eye on ongoing development of the protocol and
make changes as required."

Now you might consider this proposed to change to be small enough or
important enough to still make sense. I do not.

> To answer your question: once the spec is "officially" adopted, it
> makes sense to resist changes. We are not at this stage yet.
> 
> >  for equally silly reasons.
> 
> Internationalization is certainly not a silly reason.

You don't need IRIs for internationalization. So yes, it is a silly
reason.

bie