Mapping and Variants
mark at macchiato.com
Tue Mar 10 00:39:01 CET 2009
Mine were contained in the UTC feedback of
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00021.html, on the gTLD
Guidebook. Is that what you need?
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 15:50, Tina Dam <tina.dam at icann.org> wrote:
> Thanks Mark, yes these are the Guidelines I was referring to. As we are
> expecting to revise the Guidelines as the IDNA revision is progressing (the
> two have always followed parallel tracks) it would be very helpful if you
> could send me your suggested re-write off-list.
> *From:* mark.edward.davis at gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Davis
> *Sent:* Monday, March 09, 2009 3:33 PM
> *To:* Tina Dam
> *Cc:* Martin Duerst; Vint Cerf; idna-update at alvestrand.no; John C Klensin
> *Subject:* Re: Mapping and Variants
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 14:30, Tina Dam <tina.dam at icann.org> wrote:
> Hi everybody, sorry for catching up late on this thread. I was a bit
> occupied last week at the ICANN Mexico meeting.
> The IDN Guidelines correctly states that mixing of scripts is not allowed
> at registration time unless there is a linguistic reason for doing so (such
> as in the case of Japanese).
> When guidelines do you mean: The latest posted on
> http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/implementation-guidelines.htm are
> Version 2.2 draft 0.03 26 April 2007? It has:
> - "...domain registries will associate each label in a registered
> internationalized domain name, as it appears in their registry, with a
> single script as defined by the block division of the Unicode code chart.",
> - "All code points in a single label will be taken from the same script
> as determined by the Unicode Standard Annex #24: Script Names <
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr24>. Exceptions to this guideline are
> permissible for languages with established orthographies and conventions
> that require the commingled use of multiple scripts."
> These have some known and reported problems with this text, among them
> being that the first sentence defines script (incorrectly) by block, while
> the second leaves a very large hole for exceptions. Exceptions are
> necessary, the way this is written, since Common and Inherited script
> characters are not otherwise allowed -- which eliminates digits 0-9 as well!
> -- but that means that lower-level registries have to have exceptions as
> well. And it is not defined how one would get an exception granted: what
> would qualify as "linguistic reason for mixed scripts"?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Idna-update