A proposed solution for descriptions

Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se
Mon Jun 19 10:53:52 CEST 2006

I agree with the parsing of alternate names into separate
"Description" fields. There is no need to keep an unparsed
sequence of alternatives as a single "Description" field.

The entire "ASCIIification" arguments seems to hinge on
that "search engines" would not find non-pure-ASCII
names in the registry while it is using XML-ish NCRs.
I don't think that is entirely true, but suppose it is. I
agree with the goal of having the 3066ter registry in
UTF-8 without NCRs. When we get that, the "ASCIIifed"
names should be deleted, since now the argument for
introducing them no longer holds (even if we assume that
that argument holds now). So why introduce them at all?

B.t.w., as I live in Gothenburg, and the name of that
city was taken up as an example... "Göteborg" and (in an
otherwise English context) "Gothenburg" are ok, as is
(in a Norwegian or Danish context) "Gøteborg". But
"Goteborg" is just plain wrong in any language.

	/kent k
	Yœtebórj ;-)

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list