Browser IDN display policy: opinions sought

[James Seng]

On Sunday, December 11, 2011, Paul Hoffman wrote:

> On Dec 10, 2011, at 10:20 AM, Michel Suignard wrote:
>
> >> On 10 dec 2011, at 18:26, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> >>
> >>> D: Unicode if the label is a single script that is displayable by the
> >>> browser, Punycode otherwise.
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >> With the exceptions for combinations of various scripts and script
> COMMON.
> >
> > In fact, mixed scripts are fine and desired  in many situations.
>
> Yes.
>

Many languages uses more than one script in their written system. Even
Chinese which most people think is merely CJK Unified Ideograph would use
ASCII and sometimes others like Bopomofo.



>
> > Think of Romaji in Japan which cannot be confused with Kana and Kanji.
> So in that case it is perfectly OK to have a white list of scripts that can
> be mixed with Latin (which is the typical case).
>
> Sure, if you think there is a single entity who can make the whitelist of
> scripts that can be combined in a single label.
>
> I believe that there is not. I would like to be wrong.
>
>
Instead of trying to say what language would use a script sets and
therefore display it as U-label, why not the other way round? We know
latin/cyrillic combination would be a problem. We know there would be other
combination of scripts would be a problem. We make combination of those
scripts and display them in Punycode UNLESS the "language" of the string is
configured in the options.

I think we need a combination of auto-detect problem U-labels and a
whitelist.

-James Seng
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20111211/075f26f9/attachment-0001.html>