Re: [idn] SLC minutes

[tedd <tedd@sperling.com>]

Edmon:

I understand the problem -- I think I said that.

Now, the question is specifically: "Why is upper case <OMEGA> mapped 
to lower case <omega>?"

In other words, why is the Greek Letter Omega (upper case) mapped to 
omega (lower case)?

Instead, why wasn't the lower case omega mapped to upper case OMEGA? 
What was the reasoning behind setting that rule FOR that specific 
glyph? After all, if one is trying to "solve" a problem of unique 
domain names, then why map a glyph that IS unique to something like 
looks like so many other glyph's?

For example, what's the difference between "w.com" and "w.com"? Just 
take a look at lower case omega and tell me that it looks more 
distinctive from all the other "w"'s as the upper case omega does 
from all other glyph's. It simply doesn't.

If one was trying to solve a problem here, then I claim they didn't 
think it out. Now, point out where I'm wrong.

tedd

--- you posted

>Character Equivalence mapping is to deal with this issue:
>
>A registrant registers a domain <ALPHA><BETA>.example
>Advertises it to other people as their capital form AB.example
>An end user will not know whether it was Greek or English and attempts to
>access the site with ab.example and does not get to it.
>
>With Character Equivalance mapping, this situation would not occur.  No
>matter how a domain name is represented, it is always unique.
>
>Bear in mind that this need to happen only during matching of names within
>the DNS server.
>
>A registrant can register <ALPHA><b>.example all they want.  This is the
>misconception that I wanted to point out.  Character Equivalence mapping
>does not prohibit mixed scripts.
>
>Edmon
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "tedd" <tedd@sperling.com>
>To: <idn@ops.ietf.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:08 AM
>Subject: Re: [idn] SLC minutes
>
>
>Edmon et al:
>
>I sent the following before, but it didn't appear in the idn. The
>following is a repost:
>
>>This is the same as my thinking about LGC (Latin/Greek/Cyrillic) mapping,
>>that is
>>
>><ALPHA><a><A><alpha>.example
>>
>>will be matched as
>>
>><a'><a'><a'><a'>.example
>>
>>So, we can really fulfil the spirit of Nameprep that: "The user should not
>>be limited to only entering exactly the characters that might have been
>>used, but to instead be able to enter characters that unambiguously
>>[represents] the characters in the [perceived] host name.
>>
>>Perhaps this issue (what I call, Character Equivalence Mapping) will be
>>discussed in other wgs but I just want to clarify what I meant during the
>>SLC-IDN meeting and that I think it is important for the usability of
>>multilingual domain names when they are deployed.
>>
>>Edmon
>
>Yes, capital Omega is mapped to lower case Omega, but why?
>
>I can understand that "A" has to be mapped to "a" to stop multiple
>registrations of the same name with different capitalizations. But
>why extend that "solution" to other code points? Clearly, the two
>glyphs (? v. w) are different enough to be noticed as being different
>-- so, the rational for excluding one (i.e., Character Equivalence
>Mapping) in favor of the other must have some grounds. But, what?
>
>Furthermore, if one had to map one code point to another, then why
>didn't it go the other way? In other words, why wasn't the capital
>Omega kept and the lower case mapped to the upper case. After all,
>the capital Omega (?) looks considerably different than all other
>glyphs -- where as the lower case Omega looks like a common to many
>languages "w". In addition, I would bet that the upper case Omega has
>better global recognition than its lower case brother. So, what's the
>point of Character Equivalence Mapping in this case?
>
>tedd
>
>--
>http://sperling.com


-- 
http://sperling.com