everson at evertype.com
Mon Nov 27 19:41:34 CET 2006
At 13:05 -0500 2006-11-27, Vint Cerf wrote:
>Plainly there will be differences of opinion as to what is "safe
>enough" - the expressiveness of the characters permitted in IDNs
>should not, in my opinion, be required to have the same degree of
>expressiveness as one would expect in natural written languages.
>These are, after all, computer-based identifiers, technically
Certainly, you are right; these are identifiers. But could you expand
on what you mean by "expressiveness"? From my point of view, when I
have raised concerns, they have really only been based in a sense of
ensuring that languages can be represented pretty much normally. With
their consonants and vowels. GERESH/GERSHAYM and ETHIOPIC WORD SPACE
are edge cases here (but script-specific edge-cases so not, it would
>Plainly we want them to have some linguistic value in the sense that
>they are memorable, but the presence of search, cut/paste, and
>directories suggests that perfect memorability is less critical
>than, say, global interoperability.
I just wonder if you had any examples about what you mean here.
I have to say that since this morning the content of the discussion
has made me a lot more hopeful that things are improving.
>I hope no one reads this and thinks I am deliberately short-changing
>the expressiveness side of the equation but I am deeply concerned
>that we appreciate the intended utility of IDNs compared to general
Well, I am sure no one thinks that smart quotes should be included...
but from what I have seen most of what has been discussed has been
related to basic language alphabets.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Idna-update