language question re: IDNs
debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Wed Oct 7 14:30:06 CEST 2009
So the description I gave for Homoglyph, "same shape", was fairly accurate!
Wrt to OED vs Wikipedia, as this enquiry was specifically targeted at
facilitating the translation industry, OED is more appropriate. I wouldn't
use Wikipedia as a terminology resource within our translations for Welsh
However, I am sure that it won't take long for Homoglyph to be added to the
OED (if indeed it isn't already - I don't have the latest copy).
Thanks for the insight.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:idna-update-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Cary Karp
> Sent: 07 October 2009 13:04
> To: idna-update at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: language question re: IDNs
> 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