Unicode 7.0.0, (combining) Hamza Above, and normalization
asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Fri Aug 8 20:46:25 CEST 2014
On 8/8/2014 9:01 AM, John Levine wrote:
>> I think this is an important insight and it may indeed be the case that
>> normalization for Domain Name purposes and normalization for other purposes
>> are not as aligned as we supposed. ...
> If I may stick my semi-informed oar in, it seems to me that for
> linguistic purposes, homographs are generally not an issue. Remember
> all those manual typewriters that didn't have digit 1 or 0 keys, so
> you used letters l and O instead.
> In our case, homographs are a big deal. So can we just say that,
> and decide to do whatever minimizes homograph issues even though
> it's not the same as what would reflect linguistic usage?
I think we all get that homographs are an issue for identifiers. Yet
(and near homographs) exist for a variety of reasons -- and they are not
The discussion should be about where and how these are best addressed.
Baking exceptional treatment for isolated cases into the IDNA protocol
me as possibly the worst solution.
More information about the Idna-update