Re: [I18nrp] Last Call: <draft-faltstrom-unicode11-05.txt> (IDNA2008 and Unicode 11.0.0) to Informational RFC

[Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>]

In reply to my note of 7 Dec 2018, at 1:59
> > Registries should be conservative in the sense of advising their clients
about the likely usability of the registered name among their target
audience.
> > I don't think the IDNA RFCs currently are conservative enough.

> > As I've noted before, usability includes "re-enterable" (including
"retypable") .

Patrik replied:

> I might not agree with this, as for example very few characters in arabic
script are "retypable" for me.

That is important if you are in the registry's client's target audience. The
interesting point is that a "retypable" requirement "covers" many other
issues, including normalization, joiners, confusables, font choice. It's
plausible to restrict strings used in visual inspection to be retypable.

Usability may vary over time (hopefully no usable strings would become
unusable), depending on deployment.



 > So this is at least a separate issue. But what the
> registry chooses, I feel is up to them, as long as they do come up with a
good
> repertoire.

I think it would be reasonable to supply guidelines that are concrete and
value-based, even if difficult to measure (using Captcha?)

Larry
--
https://LarryMasinter.net