[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [idn] Roundup on optional characters
- To: idn@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: Re: [idn] Roundup on optional characters
- From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <phoffman@imc.org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 14:12:14 -0700
- Delivery-date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 14:29:45 -0700
- Envelope-to: idn-data@psg.com
At 4:19 PM -0400 8/15/00, Keith Moore wrote:
> > - Some people like the idea of optional characters in scripts where
>> there are common use for them. Of the people who actually chose
>> between (a) [optional], (b) [prohibited], and (c) [allowed as
>> normal], they chose (a).
>
>I think the characterization of the problem as being about optional
>characters is too narrow.
No, that's exactly the problem we are discussing now. You might have
other problems you want to discuss, of course.
> The general problem is one of ambiguous
>spellings resulting from transcription. Optional characters are only
>one example of this kind of ambiguity.
Correct, and it is the one we are discussing now. There is general
agreement that common misspellings or mis-identification of letters
is simply too hard to deal with and therefore out of scope. However,
Jonathan brought up a very good point, which is that in at least one
script, some characters are considered optional for inclusion. We are
trying to deal with that particular issue.
> > - Some people believe that the IETF is not the right place for this
>> decision, mostly pointing towards the Unicode Consortium. It was
>> noted that the Unicode Consortium hasn't done anything with optional
>> characters yet and, if it does in the future, it won't affect the
>> canonicalization in UTR 15 (which is stable for currently-assigned
>> characters).
>
>I'm not sure whether Unicode Consortium is the correct or only source
>that should be consulted, but no matter who is consulted, the question
>shouldn't be expressed solely in terms of optional characters.
Could you recommend who else you think is a good source?
>I agree that UTR 15 canonicalization has nothing to do with this.
Yup.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium