Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-normalizable diacritics - new property]
Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> Thu, 19 March 2015 04:31 UTC
Return-Path: <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: lucid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lucid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEC21A876F for <lucid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r8kVVqjD8z1g for <lucid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0781.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::781]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18C6D1A876D for <lucid@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.163.81.12) by BLUPR03MB1377.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (25.163.81.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.118.21; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:31:23 +0000
Received: from BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.163.81.12]) by BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([25.163.81.12]) with mapi id 15.01.0112.000; Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:31:23 +0000
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, "lucid@ietf.org" <lucid@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-normalizable diacritics - new property]
Thread-Index: AQHQYeWvrIxB8XNhl06inScNBJS0IJ0jC27ggAAKHACAAB/PsA==
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:31:23 +0000
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB137886903F15000BB01E3F5882010@BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20150311013300.GC12479@dyn.com> <CA+9kkMDZW9yPtDxtLTfY1=VS6itvHtXHF1qdZKtXdwwORwqnew@mail.gmail.com> <55008F97.8040701@ix.netcom.com> <CA+9kkMAcgSA1Ch0B9W1Np0LMn2udegZ=AzU1b26dAi+SDcbGgg@mail.gmail.com> <CY1PR0301MB07310C68F6CFDD46AE22086F82190@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20150311200941.GV15037@mx1.yitter.info> <CY1PR0301MB0731F4EBE5EB5C3340F7059282190@CY1PR0301MB0731.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20150319014018.GI5743@mx1.yitter.info> <BLUPR03MB1378184CE32E928A3086665582010@BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20150319023029.GA6046@mx1.yitter.info>
In-Reply-To: <20150319023029.GA6046@mx1.yitter.info>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [50.34.94.236]
authentication-results: anvilwalrusden.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR03MB1377;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR03MB1377EB4CABA3B0A209BC3F4982010@BLUPR03MB1377.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
x-forefront-antispam-report: BMV:1; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(51704005)(76576001)(99286002)(77156002)(102836002)(62966003)(106116001)(40100003)(86362001)(74316001)(2656002)(87936001)(2501003)(107886001)(54356999)(50986999)(122556002)(2950100001)(92566002)(66066001)(2900100001)(46102003)(33656002)(220923002)(222073002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR03MB1377; H:BLUPR03MB1378.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005006)(5002010); SRVR:BLUPR03MB1377; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR03MB1377;
x-forefront-prvs: 052017CAF1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 19 Mar 2015 04:31:23.3975 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR03MB1377
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lucid/uwRID9K3_tofOjNXhvbQthmgsRk>
Subject: Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-normalizable diacritics - new property]
X-BeenThere: lucid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Locale-free UniCode Identifiers \(LUCID\)" <lucid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lucid>, <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lucid/>
List-Post: <mailto:lucid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lucid>, <mailto:lucid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2015 04:31:43 -0000
> > No, even all NFC or NFKC would be 100% unique to the machine > This is either tautologically true, or false. Certainly we learned with IDNA2003 that NFKC doesn't work, because while it's good for increasing match probability the identifiers aren't stable. So when they're handed around through different environments, stuff happens that is bad. I said "to the machine". They're "just numbers", and the NFC/NFKC rules are mathematical. Yes, you do have to exclude unassigned code points as those don't have defined behavior, however "Assigned NFC or NFKC for defined code points" would be 100% unique to the machine. > The point is merely that you cannot get from "this won't ever be pefect" to "therefore we shouldn't even try" without a bunch more premises. I'm not trying to go from "this can't be perfect" to "we shouldn't try". I am trying to say that this is good enough. The additional cost of trying doesn't add value. > > I think the opinions of the computer scientists and users in marketing departments may differ greatly here. Many users treat domain names more as a natural linguistic thing than a mathematical identifier. Enough to sue over names. > I think speculating about the anthropololical facts here is going to lead us to grief. Let's stick with a domain of discourse we know well. IDN is sociological exercise. If the need was purely scientific/mathematical, then we'd only need a bunch of numbers or opaque IDs. In order to make much progress here I think we need to think about how people use them. -Shawn
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Shawn Steele
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Asmus Freytag
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Shawn Steele
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Shawn Steele
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Shawn Steele
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… John C Klensin
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… John C Klensin
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Asmus Freytag
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Shawn Steele
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… John C Klensin
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… Asmus Freytag
- Re: [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-norm… John C Klensin
- [Lucid] [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-normalizable… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Lucid] [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-normaliz… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Lucid] [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-normaliz… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Lucid] [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-normaliz… Shawn Steele
- Re: [Lucid] [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-normaliz… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Lucid] [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-normaliz… John C Klensin
- [Lucid] FW: [mark@macchiato.com: Re: Non-normaliz… Shawn Steele