<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:890576793;
mso-list-template-ids:-1204379560;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:2118401121;
mso-list-template-ids:934171916;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I disagreed
with your assessment: “</span>that the relative proportion per language is
important.” <span style='color:#1F497D'>I think all languages should be able to
be represented no matter the size of population (I know you did not say that)
or the amount of content– after all that is what IDNs are all about – getting the
Internet addresses out to the regions where usability of the Internet otherwise
is difficult.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The
explanation I added, was “in addition” to yours. But to comment on your note below
- one reason why Chinese for example has</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> a larger uptake is the way
they implemented it (with no need inside China to type the .cn). So I really don’t
think it is fair to compare Greek with German and so forth. If you want to make
the comparison then I think we need to look broader than just the amount of
content. Other than that I think content goes hand in hand with population
size, Internet usage in the population, as well as whether the addresses are
available matching the content language or script if you like. Hopefully
getting the IDNs out the door and in a more useful manner will make the other
areas grow as well.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Tina<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
mark.edward.davis@gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis@gmail.com] <b>On Behalf
Of </b>Mark Davis ?<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:35 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Tina Dam<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Erik van der Poel; Shawn Steele; Patrik Fältström; Harald
Alvestrand; idna-update@alvestrand.no; lisa Dusseault; Alexander Mayrhofer;
Martin J. Dürst; Vint Cerf<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: The real issue: interopability, and a proposal (Was:
Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I'm not exactly sure what you were disagreeing with. I
wrote: "One addition: there is over 35 times as much German content as
Greek, so that explains part of the difference in final-sigma vs eszed
proportion. (The relative proportion per language is important.)"<br>
<br>
So which of these three are you disagreeing with?<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type=disc>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1'>the relative proportion of content, or <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1'>that it explains part of the difference, or <o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1'>that the relative proportion per language is
important.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ul>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>As for your point, it is a
valid one: that the uptake of IDNs has varied by script. However, your figures
and conclusion are not accurate; by our measurements at Google the uptake in
Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are each higher than Germany, and Japan is near
Germany. And all of those are non-Latin. Uptake in Greece is about half that of
Germany, but still respectable. So while I agree that part of the difference is
the uptake, I still believe that -- as I said -- part (actually a large part)
of the difference is due to the 35 : 1 ratio of web content.<br>
<br clear=all>
Mark<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>2009/12/1 Tina Dam <<a href="mailto:tina.dam@icann.org">tina.dam@icann.org</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Hi Mark, I respectfully disagree with
your assessment. Also based on the correspondence I have received over the last
several years, explains another reasons that Greek and other non-Latin based
addresses are not used as much. It is simply quite inconvenient to have IDNs at
the second level in non-Latin based scripts, then to switch script when typing
the top level portion of the address.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>For that reason IDNs at the second level
in certain scripts has not been introduced or if introduced then not considered
useful.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>This is anticipated to change as we get
the IDN TLDs launched.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Tina</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;
border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> <a
href="mailto:idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">idna-update-bounces@alvestrand.no</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark Davis ?<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:23 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Erik van der Poel<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Shawn Steele; Patrik Fältström; Harald Alvestrand; <a
href="mailto:idna-update@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">idna-update@alvestrand.no</a>;
lisa Dusseault; Alexander Mayrhofer; Martin J. Dürst; Vint Cerf<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: The real issue: interopability, and a proposal (Was:
Consensus Call on Latin Sharp S and Greek Final Sigma)</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'>One
addition: there is over 35 times as much German content as Greek, so that
explains part of the difference in final-sigma vs eszed proportion. (The
relative proportion per language is important.)<br>
<br clear=all>
Mark<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>2009/12/1
Erik van der Poel <<a href="mailto:erikv@google.com" target="_blank">erikv@google.com</a>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I
ran the program again today, and Eszett is being used a bit more now<br>
than it was last year.<br>
<br>
2009-11-28<br>
1,253,099,703 documents<br>
88,712,912,831 links<br>
8,981 Eszett in host name in link 0.00001%<br>
<a href="http://furz-grosserfurz.de" target="_blank">furz-großerfurz.de</a><br>
<a href="http://www.bussgeldexperten.de" target="_blank">www.bußgeldexperten.de</a><br>
<a href="http://www.metzgerei-gassner.de" target="_blank">www.metzgerei-gaßner.de</a><br>
<br>
2008-11-19<br>
819,600,672 documents<br>
49,904,513,188 links<br>
2,739 Eszett in host name in link 0.0000055%<br>
<a href="http://www.rtc-grossefehn.de" target="_blank">www.rtc-großefehn.de</a><br>
<a href="http://www.mein-fussballclub.de" target="_blank">www.mein-fußballclub.de</a><br>
<a href="http://www.dermassanzug.com" target="_blank">www.dermaßanzug.com</a><br>
<br>
2006-11-27<br>
889,759,121 documents<br>
1,973 Eszett in host name in document URL 0.00022%<br>
<a href="http://www.uni-giessen.de" target="_blank">www.uni-gießen.de</a><br>
<a href="http://www.uni-giessen.de" target="_blank">www.uni-gießen.de</a><br>
<a href="http://www.uni-giessen.de" target="_blank">www.uni-gießen.de</a><br>
<br>
All 3 of the samples were "high value" documents in our index. The<br>
2006 sample looked for Eszett in the host name in the URL of the<br>
document (rather than links inside the document). It is no longer<br>
possible to find Eszett in the URLs of our documents because they are<br>
now all mapped to "ss". So the 2006 sample cannot really be compared<br>
with the others because the URL of a document always contains a host<br>
name, while a link inside a document might be a relative URL (without<br>
a host name).<br>
<br>
The Final Sigma has not grown as much:<br>
<br>
2009-11-28<br>
305 final sigma in host name in link<br>
0.00000034%<br>
<a href="http://www.xn--mxadbxfgktc4bn4g.gr" target="_blank">www.γυναικολόγος.gr</a><br>
<a href="http://www.xn--mxadbxfgktc4bn4g.gr" target="_blank">www.γυναικολόγος.gr</a><br>
<a href="http://www.xn--mxadbxfgktc4bn4g.gr" target="_blank">www.γυναικολόγος.gr</a><br>
<br>
2008-11-19<br>
138 final sigma in host name in link<br>
0.00000028%<br>
<a href="http://www.xn--mxacja3bxaqb.gr" target="_blank">www.ταβερνες.gr</a><br>
<a href="http://www.xn--owa9dlitap4c.gr" target="_blank">www.ελληναΐς.gr</a><br>
<a href="http://www.xn--mxadbxfgktc4bn4g.gr" target="_blank">www.γυναικολόγος.gr</a><br>
<span style='color:#888888'><br>
Erik</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><br>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Mark Davis ☕ <<a
href="mailto:mark@macchiato.com" target="_blank">mark@macchiato.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> It is approximately 60, as you computed. The trillion figure was in a
public<br>
> posting from July 2008, which is why we can quote it.<br>
><br>
> Mark<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2009/12/1 Harald Alvestrand <<a href="mailto:harald@alvestrand.no"
target="_blank">harald@alvestrand.no</a>><br>
>><br>
>> Mark Davis ☕ wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> As far as Harald's back-of-the-envelope calculations go, they
present a<br>
>>> very inaccurate picture of the scale. Here are some more exact
figures for<br>
>>> that data.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 1. 819,600,672 = sample size of documents<br>
>>> 2. 5,000 = links with eszed in the sample<br>
>>> 3. 1,000,000,000,000 = total documents in
index (2008)<br>
>>> 4. 1,220 = scaling factor (= total docs /
sample size)<br>
>>> 5. 6,100,532 = estimated total links with
eszed (= scaling *<br>
>>> sample eszed links)<br>
>>><br>
>>> Even this has to be taken with a certain grain of salt, since (a)
it is<br>
>>> assuming that the sample is representative (although we have
reasonable<br>
>>> confidence in that), and (b) it doesn't weight the
"importance" of the links<br>
>>> (in terms of the number of times they are followed), and (c) this
data was<br>
>>> collected back in Nov 2008, so we've had another year of growth
since then.<br>
>><br>
>> I obviously need a bigger envelope :-) - I didn't think we had one<br>
>> trillion documents in the 2008 index.<br>
>><br>
>> One missing number: how many links per document?<br>
>><br>
>> Obviously #eszed links / #documents can't be the basis of the 0.00001%<br>
>> figure that Erik quoted, because 5000/819600672 = 0.00061005%, not
0.00001%,<br>
>> which is a factor of 60 larger, but if we estimate 60 links per
document,<br>
>> the 0.00001% fits nicely as the percentage of links that contain
eszed.<br>
>><br>
>> Harald<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>>
_______________________________________________<br>
> Idna-update mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update"
target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br>
><br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>