Follow-up to Monday's discussion of digits

Vint Cerf vint at google.com
Tue Nov 25 23:52:13 CET 2008


Alireza,

point taken. So the delicate issue is where to draw the line between  
protocol prohibition and dependence on registry filtering.

v

NOTE NEW BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE
Vint Cerf
Google
1818 Library Street, Suite 400
Reston, VA 20190
202-370-5637
vint at google.com




On Nov 25, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Alireza Saleh wrote:

> Dear Vint,
>
> Would you **please** consider that Arabic Language is not the only  
> language which  uses Arabic-Script. Some countries such as Iran  
> using both sets because 4-5-6 look different in two sets.
> A registry for the security reasons may prohibit the Digit-Mixing ,  
> but the domain's owner  may want to mix it to attract the market.
> For example : please visit   ش_/*۴٤*/_.تست.کام .   Is it  
> really fare to prohibit it ?
>
> alireza
>
> Vint Cerf wrote:
>> Eric,
>>
>> in the various email exchanges from Arabic working group(s), I  
>> came away with the impression that a safer and apparently  
>> acceptable policy would be to prohibit mixing of any of these  
>> three in the same label. That is plainly more stringent than your  
>> proposal but I did not get the sense that the working groups whose  
>> email exchanges I was privileged to see felt they needed to mix  
>> any of these together.
>>
>> Vint
>>
>>
>>
>> 2008/11/18 Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net  
>> <mailto:ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>>
>>
>>     Vint, John, Paf, All,
>>
>>     On the question of what to do about the code points in the ranges
>>
>>     U+0030..U+0039,
>>     U+0660..U+0669,
>>     U+06F0..U+06F9,
>>
>>     I think that allowing only the first range is incorrect.
>>
>>     I think that allowing all three ranges is correct if a mechanism
>>     for equivalency exists.
>>
>>     Assuming that no equivalence mechanism exists, for whatever
>>     rational, I think that allowing the first range, and only one of
>>     the second two ranges, is sufficient.
>>
>>     Outside of the protocol, registries are free to implement a
>>     registry-local policy, which may restrict code points in a label
>>     to one range only, or one of two ranges, where one is in the
>>     U+0030..U+0039 range, but not both of the ranges U+0660..U+0669
>>     and U+06F0..U+06F9.
>>
>>     As I mentioned yesterday, and as the jabber scribe correctly
>>     summarized:
>>
>>     ajsaf at jabber.org <mailto:ajsaf at jabber.org> Eric: reject latin- 
>> only
>>     ajsaf at jabber.org <mailto:ajsaf at jabber.org> accept proposal for no
>>     mix between extended and non-extended
>>     ajsaf at jabber.org <mailto:ajsaf at jabber.org> but overboard to go  
>> further
>>
>>     There are, as John rebutted, buggy input methods, but that can't
>>     be controlling.
>>
>>     Eric
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ---
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Idna-update mailing list
>> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20081125/a33243ae/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Idna-update mailing list