Re: [idn] hostname history hell

[Kenneth Whistler <kenw@sybase.com>]

While we're being high-minded on this idn thread from hell...

> > Since you introduced the term "market research" into this
> > previously high-minded discussion ( :-( ), have you thought
> > about what you would put into a whois-like table with these
> > things?  How you would feel about being put into the middle of a
> > discussion of whether a name starting in a left-wizzlepop was
> > too similar to one starting in a left-popplewiz?

The left-wizzlepop has been officially encoded now at U+29D8,
with the corresponding right-wizzlepop at U+29D9. And there is,
indeed, an issue of confusion with the popplewiz, encoded at
U+299A (although it isn't clear that the popplewiz comes in
a left or a right variety, unlike the wizzlepop). See:

http://www.unicode.org/charts/draftunicode32/U32-2980.pdf 

> > I may have
> > missed something, but my impression is that the UTC TRs that
> > describe canonicalization don't do much for drawing characters:

The Unicode Technical Report in question, is UAX #15, Unicode
Normalization Forms, which describes normalization of Unicode
character sequences. ("Canonical ordering" is another thing,
which is why we avoid the term "canonicalization" for referring
to normalization of Unicode data.) But yes, Unicode normalization
does nothing for most of the symbols, including all the box
drawing characters and the like, since there are no equivalent
sequences for these things formally defined in the standard -- 
certainly not just on the basis of visual confusability.

> > do you propose that the IETF do that work?  

Now *there's* a daft thought.

--Ken

> > Or do you think it
> > is unnecessary?
>