A comment on draft-faltstrom-idnabis-tables-05.txt

Martin Duerst duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Tue Apr 8 05:19:46 CEST 2008

At 00:56 08/04/08, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

>I'm guessing that the rational for the full stop exclusion is not that its "confusingly similar to" some other character, but because it is functionally equivalent to "dot" (and is always translated into roman script as ".").

Already in IDNA2003, there are some characters that serve as
equivalents to '.'. Additions to this category have been
discussed, but it is unclear how the final solution would look.

Anyway, if the list of '.' equivalents is going to be expanded,
should U+166E be added to that list (e.g. because it's much
easier to type on the relevant keyboard layouts than '.' itself)?

Regards,   Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp     

More information about the Idna-update mailing list