IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [idn] something a little lighter for the weekend

John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com> Mon, 28 February 2005 18:54 UTC

Received: from psg.com (mailnull@psg.com [147.28.0.62]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA21718 for <idn-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:54:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D5pxw-000IFH-P0 for idn-data@psg.com; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:50:00 +0000
Received: from [209.187.148.211] (helo=bs.jck.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44 (FreeBSD)) id 1D5pxu-000IEv-L4 for idn@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:49:58 +0000
Received: from [209.187.148.215] (helo=scan.jck.com) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1D5pxu-000PQ3-1s; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:49:58 -0500
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:49:57 -0500
From: John C Klensin <klensin@jck.com>
To: Doug Ewell <dewell@adelphia.net>, IETF idn working group <idn@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [idn] something a little lighter for the weekend
Message-ID: <A5A82B881A7D6A28ABD4EB7E@scan.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <003101c51db1$d8a16580$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <p06210208be4390618c81@[192.168.0.101]> <421E0D0C.2000309@vanderpoel.org> <p06210202be43c3888991@[192.168.0.101]> <E07CE813AD23B2D95DA0C740@scan.jck.com> <421E30F2.1040408@vanderpoel.org> <0E7F74C71945B923C52211F3@scan.jck.com> <421EA0C9.1010500@vanderpoel.org> <00a401c51af3$7863aae0$030aa8c0@DEWELL> <20050226081913.GD14956~@nicemice.net> <4220D1C4.7000909@vanderpoel.org> <20050228015545.GA23896~@nicemice.net> <003101c51db1$d8a16580$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.1 (2004-10-22) on psg.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.1
Sender: owner-idn@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


--On Monday, 28 February, 2005 08:23 -0800 Doug Ewell
<dewell@adelphia.net> wrote:

> Adam M. Costello <idn dot amc plus 0 at nicemice dot net dot
> RemoveThisWord> wrote:
> 
>> According to the Unicode standard, there are 52 scripts.
> 
> There may be 52 scripts currently encoded in Unicode, but I am
> sure Unicode does not claim that is the total number of
> scripts in the world. Others can and will be encoded.

At least as important, those are "scripts" with regard to
typographic relationships, more or less.  The issue that started
ICANN (and others) down the "language" path is that, if one
wants to avoid homographs _as seen by a user who is not familiar
with a different script or part of a script_, one often needs to
make more constrained lists of characters than those that appear
to be "scripts" from the Unicode standpoint.  And, as Michel
points out, the Unicode list is growing and will probably
continue to grow.

   john

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email