AW: Mapping?

Debbie Garside debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Thu Dec 3 10:50:42 CET 2009


 Andrew wrote:

> The opponents of PVALID for these contentious characters are
> claiming not that they're useless.  They're claiming that the
> change from
> IDNA2003 is harmful. It's a serious charge, and we need to
> focus on it (I've certainly failed to be consistent on that)
> because it's the core dispute.

I agree!

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: 03 December 2009 00:29
> To: Georg Ochsner
> Cc: Michael Everson; IDNA update work
> Subject: Re: AW: Mapping?
>
> Sorry about the top post.
>
> I don't even know why "Is this really important?" gets to be
> a question, and to be fair to the mapping proponents I don't
> think that's what their strongest argument is.
>
>   The very charter, and before that the BoF, establishing
> this WG was clear that the point of the work was to move from
> a permission-list model to a permissive model, where
> "permissive" meant "not obviously harmful".
>
> The opponents of PVALID for these contentious characters are
> claiming not that they're useless.  They're claiming that the
> change from
> IDNA2003 is harmful. It's a serious charge, and we need to
> focus on it (I've certainly failed to be consistent on that)
> because it's the core dispute.
>
> A
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> <ajs at shinkuro.com>
>
> On 2009-12-02, at 18:42, "Georg Ochsner" <g.ochsner at revolistic.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Michael,
> >
> > thank you for once more putting all this right! I am constantly
> > shaking my head because people believe to know how little
> the German
> > users would need the ß and its distinction from ss. In my
> opinion ID
> > NA should try to enable as many letters (!) as possible
> anyway, but if
> > one is trying to assess the relevance of the ß, then
> shouldn't be  the
> > actual usage of it the most relevant and objective factor?
> >
> > Please could someone provide numbers of the actual usage of
> ß, ä, ö,
> > ü, and the other 26 letters within German online texts (not links
> > ) in Germany and Austria? Or query the Duden and have a look on how
> > many German words can ONLY be spelled properly with ß? Or
> query a Ge
> > rman Wikipedia dump and see how often the letters are used?
> BTW as I
> > wrote before 1,5 Mio. Germans have a surname with ß, that's
> more th an
> > 1,8% of the population.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Georg
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >> Von: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:idna-update-
> >> bounces at alvestrand.no] Im Auftrag von Michael Everson
> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Dezember 2009 21:52
> >> An: IDNA update work
> >> Betreff: Re: Mapping?
> >>
> >> I'll just say it again. ß is not ss. ß is not ?s either. Þ
> is not th.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, Ü is ü.
> >>
> >>> I'm not Patrik, but what I think is interesting is that ß is
> >>> meaningless in Swedish.  For Swedish users, mapping ß to
> ss may not
> >>> make sense because ss isn't ß.  Same in English, I can't
> make a  fuß
> >>> about something, I have to spell it fuss.
> >>
> >> Ha! You can spell it fu?s though in 18th-century orthography.
> >>
> >> But, um, please remember something.
> >>
> >> Swedish users are not monoglot Swedish speakers.
> >>
> >> American users are not monoglot English speakers.
> >>
> >> I'm allowed to be interested in fußball.ie if I want. Or in iß-
> >> mich.com or imbiß.org or or for all I know ßpiek-inglisch.de. Am I
> >> not?
> >>
> >>> On the other hand, ß is meaningless, so I don't see that it hurts
> >>> English or Swedish to map it to ss.
> >>
> >> I don't accept that "ß is meaningless". Maybe to someone who has n
> >> ever seen it, but in this day and age? And German is still
> taught in
> >> American schools, I am sure. That's where I learnt mine. German
> >> certainly is taught in Irish ones.
> >>
> >>> Digressing:  ß is also very unique.  AFAIK it only has this one
> >>> behavior because it was originally kinda like a ligature (some
> >>> typography person's going to correct me :)
> >>
> >> Yes, I am. Its origin is a ligature, but the same can be
> said of "w".
> >> The letter "G" was once really "C" with a diacritic stroke.
> >>
> >>> So unless ß has been adopted by another language I don't think
> >>> there's a language where the mapping is actually wrong.
> (ou == o is
> >>> actually wrong many places, as is dropping diacritics or
> doing other
> >>> diacritic mappings).  Eszett is unique.
> >>
> >> All right, everyone, get out your crystal balls....
> >>
> >> ß has been used historically in orthographies for Baltic and Germa
> >> nic languages.
> >>
> >>> On the third hand, ß is also the "correct" spelling for
> some words,
> >>> so even though a Swiss user might expect something
> different, and I
> >>> don't see any harm in mapping it, it is clear that
> fußball shoul d
> >>> be spelled fußball in Germany and Austria.  IMO that
> doesn't make it
> >>> harmful that fußball and fussball end up at the same place.
> >>
> >> The harm in mapping it is that pass.ie is not paß.ie
> >>
> >> As I said before, Eisstrasse may be Eisstraße but it cannot be
> >> Eißtrasse or Eißtraße. Here, ss ? ß.
> >>
> >> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Idna-update mailing list
> >> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> >> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Idna-update mailing list
> > Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>






More information about the Idna-update mailing list