Archaic scripts

Gervase Markham gerv at
Thu May 8 21:59:42 CEST 2008

Shawn Steele wrote:
> And IMO if those few users would also like a name in cuneiform, then
> that should be permitted.  Of course it'd only be usable by a few
> people, but many other small groups have web sites in a
> friendly-to-them form that they only expect a few people to use.

Sites, absolutely. Domain names are an entirely different thing to sites.

Apostrophe is not permitted in domain names, and won't be under any 
revisions we might make. Yet the number of people who might want to use 
an apostrophe (for example, to have their surname as a domain) vastly 
outweighs the number of people who want cuneiform. So, if "some people 
will want it" is our only test, then apostrophe should be in.

However, it's not our only test, and rightly so. Every character we add 
(assuming some registry permits it; and if none ever would, why add it?) 
is a small additional risk - both for issues we know about now, and ones 
that might appear in the future. Just because each one individually is 
small doesn't mean we should add thousands of them (which is where the 
logical conclusion of your argument is).


More information about the Idna-update mailing list