language question re: IDNs
eblanconil at gmail.com
Wed Oct 7 14:22:20 CEST 2009
was the bundling refering to homoglyphs per se, or to a specific
registration service in case of homoglyphs. I understand the Unicode
homograph concern, but the homoglyph is what people actually see.
Should not homographs be the first concern and bundled registration a
first line of protection, and homoglyph bundled registration be a
second concern built on experience? Are there some homoglyph
investigators or tables?
2009/10/7 Cary Karp <ck at nic.museum>:
> Quoting Debbie:
>> Within translation new terminology can create problems. I think I would
>> advise to change to a term that can at least be found in the OED giving
>> translators a chance of finding an equivalent.
> The homoglyph/synoglyph terminology was adopted by an ICANN working group
> entirely separate from the IDNA w.g.. It is being used in their context as
> an intermediate expedient to clarify the group's own thinking, with the
> intention of jettisoning all such high-falutin' verbiage in the final
> Except for the present exchange, I wasn't aware that there had been any
> leakage outside that limited scope. But as long as that cat now appears to
> be out of the bag, the warrant for homoglyph/synoglyph was taken from the
> Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoglyph. Which, dare I
> say it, is likely to be a more frequently referenced source by our target
> audience than is the OED.
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
More information about the Idna-update