Unicode & IETF
asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Wed Aug 13 06:28:27 CEST 2014
On 8/12/2014 5:48 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> And, once again, Shawn, unless you look at "ß" and see "ss",
> the relationship is an interesting topic but not relevant to the
> current thread,
To the degree that these two sequenced have a relationship, this is the
kind of relationship where users may (I write may) expect the system to
treat *non*-identical entities as if they were the same, essentially,
such desire would be a question of desire for a "fuzzy" match. And
that's not native to the DNS (despite attempts to bring this in via the
back door by allocating multiple labels to the same requester). Agree
with John, it's a different discussion.
> nor is any resemblance you might see between
> "ß" and "β" (U+03B2).
Typical case of "accidental confusibility".
> Even if they did look the same to you,
> it might not be relevant unless, e.g., they occupied the same
> key on your keyboard. As far as I know, no one is trying to get
> a universal similar-looking character recognizer out of these
This is where I think it intersects with our current discussion.
When two sequences are ruled non-identical it has consequences for
keyboard layouts; they are usually not both present.
In fact, in the vast majority, one of the sequences (usually the one
that is not a singleton) is encoded for some specialized use (or
potential use) and the other one (usually the singleton) is the one that
is encoded for support of an orthography and can be expected to be
(widely) available on keyboards.
So, we we agree that the question of whether things are on the same
keyboard is relevant, then it is relevant to this discussion.
More information about the Idna-update