Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma

Vint Cerf vint at google.com
Wed Dec 2 13:42:18 CET 2009


thank you Sotiris; are you willing to express an opinion regarding  
sharp-S as well?
in other words are you saying that BOTH characters should be valid on  
the basis of
your reasoning or only Greek Final Sigma should be valid?

v

On Dec 2, 2009, at 5:35 AM, Sotiris Panaretou wrote:

> Dear Vint,
>
> Following the question about allowing or not Greek Final Sigma, I  
> would like
> to express our position at .cy ccTLD (Cyprus).
>
> The Greek Final Sigma shall be PVALID because it is a character of  
> the Greek
> Alphabet and by disallowing it Greek Language will not be represented
> correctly.
>
> Best Regards,
> Sotiris Panaretou
> .cy ccTLD
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vaggelis Segredakis [mailto:segred at ics.forth.gr]
> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 5:03 PM
> To: 'Vint Cerf'
> Cc: idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Subject: Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma
>
> Dear Vint,
>
> If the question you raised is a step to eliminate these two  
> characters then
> my answer is NO;
>
> (1) Both characters should be PVALID
>
> However, please keep in mind that I do not regard the solution of  
> the IDNA
> protocol in general as optimal solution (please take a look at my
> presentation in the last IGF meeting in Egypt
> https://www.centr.org/main/5354-CTR/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data
> /IGF2009%20-%20Segredakis%20IDNA2008%20a%20Protocol%20with 
> %20shortcomings.pd
> f). This protocol presents lots of shortcomings for the Greek  
> language and
> actually requests from the end-user to adapt to it instead of the  
> protocol
> adapting to the languages.
>
> As we move forward with IDNA2008 I would welcome very much a request  
> from
> this WG to the IETF to introduce a xNAME command in the DNS that  
> will allow
> whole domain name trees to equal each other (one level above DNAME)  
> since
> Greek registrants will have to have lots of domain names pointing  
> one to the
> other just to receive emails properly.
>
> If this wouldn't be a choice, a new protocol that would take in  
> account all
> these issues and start from scratch, maybe with character formatting  
> instead
> of PUNYCODE translations and mappings would be a nicer solution than  
> a patch
> of the IDNA which carries skeletons of the past. However, this very  
> last
> paragraph is my personal wish-list and not a formal position.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Vaggelis Segredakis
> Administrator of the .GR Top Level Domain
> Institute of Computer Science
> Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas
> Tel. +30-281-0391450
> Fax +30-281-0391451
> Email segred at ics.forth.gr
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:28:22 -0500
> From: Vint Cerf <vint at google.com>
> Subject: Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma
> To: idna-update at alvestrand.no	
> Cc: lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault at gmail.com>
> Message-ID: <3FCFF859-FEB2-4586-98EA-401F0853F78E at google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> In consultation with the area director, issues were raised  
> concerning the
> consensus on the use of Latin small letter sharp S and Greek small  
> final
> sigma as PVALID in IDNA2008.
>
> I have copied the working group on a request for opinion from the  
> Unicode
> Technical Committee.
>
> By this message, I request a response from the Working Group on the
> question:
>
> Should Latin Small Letter Sharp S and Greek Small Letter Final Sigma  
> be
> PVALID in IDNA2008 or not:
>
> Please Respond by choosing among the following:
>
> (1) Both characters should be PVALID
> (2) Both characters should be DISALLOWED
> (3) Only Latin Small Letter Sharp S should be PVALID
> (4) Only Greek Small Letter Final Sigma should be PVALID
>
> Choices (3) and (4) create additional complexity in dealing with
> IDNA2003 and IDNA2008 disparities
>
> During the Last Call, a number of objections were raised with regard  
> to
> choice (1) and this led the Area Director to question the rough  
> consensus
> that the WG submission to IESG claimed.
>
> It will be much appreciated if all working group members would  
> respond by
> December 8.
>
> thanks,
>
> vint cerf
>
>



More information about the Idna-update mailing list