From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Thu Mar 24 2005 - 11:42:56 CST
> It's always necessary to remember that the goal is domain names, not
simply
I agree with you in general. I do want to note that the principles being
applied to domain names are likely to be extended to similar areas of "user
identifiers". If a character is required by the orthography of a modern
language, we have to be very careful about excluding it.
At this point, I don't want to debate the usage; I just want to collect the
data. If people care about the
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk@qaya.org>; "Mark Davis" <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>
Cc: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 22:03
Subject: Re: Security Issues
> At 04:56 PM 3/23/2005, Peter Kirk wrote:
> >On the other hand, there are quite a number of your listed atomic cased
> >Latin letters which are not in current use, although it is dangerous to
> >say that they will not be used because some of these older orthographies
> >are being revived.
>
> It's always necessary to remember that the goal is domain names, not
simply
> modern prose
> (or poetry ;=).
>
> I think people will (more or less cheerfully) trade some restrictions if
> they buy an increase in security, so that some kinds of fallbacks are
going
> to be tolerable, that would not be tolerated in even the most rudimentary
> general purpose text display.
>
> O'Connor -> OConnor could be an example of what I am thinking of, but
> dropping a full-fledged letter would likely not be.
>
> The devil, as always, is in the details, so this being only a general
> observation, might not be all that helpful.
>
> A./
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 24 2005 - 11:43:36 CST