Leaving out scripts (Re: Unicode versions (Re: Criteria for
exceptional characters))
Harald Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Wed Dec 20 00:57:41 CET 2006
--On 19. desember 2006 14:25 -0800 Mark Davis <mark.davis at icu-project.org>
wrote:
>> Many, including Arabic, Sanskrit and Dhivehi. Possibly Hebrew too. But
>> "leaving out" may be an underspecified term here - see next comment.
>
> Your statement pretty much floored me. Before we remove the ability to
> use domain names from billions of people, it'd be good to have solid,
> defensible reasons for doing so.
>
Let me complete my sentence....
Until we have a decision and an algorithm that we are sure makes sense for
the use of Arabic modified forms, Arabic vowel marks and Arabic shaping
modifiers, I think it makes more sense not to register any Arabic domain
names.
Until we have a decision and an algorithm for determining when ZWJ/ZWNJ
should be allowed in Sanskrit domain names, I think it makes more sense not
to register any Sanskrit domain names.
Until we have a rule that allows us to use the vowel marks in Dhivehi
without causing damage to any other part of the registration set, I think
it makes more sense not to register any Dhivehi domain names.
As soon as we know that we have a rational decision on the known issues
with a certain script (ISO 15924 meaning of the word), and a reasonable
confidence that there are no more issues about to bite us, I'm all for
allowing registries to say "our policy is to allow registrations that use
characters from this script (Unicode meaning of the word)".
In *all* these cases, I think it makes sense to tell IDNA implementors on
the *lookup* side that they should allow those characters to be encoded; if
an user types them, they should go across the wire. The worst that will
happen (in the absence of client-side "mappings") is a "no such domain
name".
Harald
More information about the Idna-update
mailing list