baking into the protocol

[Martin Duerst]

At 05:44 06/12/21, John C Klensin wrote:

[removing most of the post, because I generally agree]

>There is another problem with prohibiting script-mixing at the
>protocol (IDNA) level and that is that the common,
>on-the-street, perception of "the script we use" is different
>from the Unicode definitions of "script".  No one is wrong here,
>but, if JDNC concludes that Romanji is a necessity and must be
>available in mixed names with Kanji and Kana, I don't think we
>are in a position to say "no" (although we can _advise_ that
>this isn't a good idea). 

And why _should_ we advice that it isn't a good idea?
The confusion potential between Latin and Kanji/Kana is
virtually nil.

>Similar examples arise with mixtures
>of Cyrillic and Roman characters in Russia, even though we are
>agreed that is one of the more dangerous cases of mixed-script
>labels (the fact that some strings in Cyrillic can be confused
>with names in Latin characters even when they are purely
>Cyrillic is one of the arguments why prohibiting mixed scripts
>isn't nearly as powerful a tool as is often argued).

Yes. The amount of danger comming from script mixtures depends
extremely strongly on the scripts involved. That's why any kind
of general solution, even in the form of a recommendation,
is probably a bad idea.

Regards,     Martin.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp