[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: Eeek - .NU Domains using
At 06:01 10.01.00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
>%
>% At 17:29 09.01.00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
>%
>% >I'd be strongly in favor of not mixing glyphs between sets.
>%
>% but we can't tell whether we are doing this without defining what a "set"
>% is, which gets us started down the implementation slippery slope.
>
> Punt to ISO, they've done a fine job of defining set creation.
yes, we can just pick one of their many definitions......
seriously, using the ISO 10646 named subsets makes sense, but I didn't want
to go there because it makes the 10646-or-not question come to the front
again.
>% We can say that "there is no requirement for mixing A with B inside a
>% single label", where A and B are different subsets of the set of all
>% characters.
>% Giving a few examples is probably Good Enough for the requirements.
>%
>% A requirement that it should be illegal to do such mixing can be read as 2
>% things:
>% - A technical requirement on the solution that it should be easy to identify
>% the subset a character comes from, and either prohibit the mixing or say
>% that there is no requirement on implementations that they support this
>% - An administrative requirement that no such label should be registered.
>%
>% The first one belongs in this group, IMHO. The last one doesn't.
>%
>% Harald
>%
>
> Bingo. And what does the current, predominent implementation do
> in this regard?
Does not understand that there is a question?
Harald
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no