Re: Fwd: Eeek - .NU Domains using

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 06:01 10.01.00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
>%
>% At 17:29 09.01.00 -0800, Bill Manning wrote:
>%
>% >I'd be strongly in favor of not mixing glyphs between sets.
>%
>% but we can't tell whether we are doing this without defining what a "set"
>% is, which gets us started down the implementation slippery slope.
>
>         Punt to ISO, they've done a fine job of defining set creation.

yes, we can just pick one of their many definitions......
seriously, using the ISO 10646 named subsets makes sense, but I didn't want 
to  go there because it makes the 10646-or-not question come to the front 
again.

>% We can say that "there is no requirement for mixing A with B inside a
>% single label", where A and B are different subsets of the set of all
>% characters.
>% Giving a few examples is probably Good Enough for the requirements.
>%
>% A requirement that it should be illegal to do such mixing can be read as 2
>% things:
>% - A technical requirement on the solution that it should be easy to identify
>%    the subset a character comes from, and either prohibit the mixing or say
>%    that there is no requirement on implementations that they support this
>% - An administrative requirement that no such label should be registered.
>%
>% The first one belongs in this group, IMHO. The last one doesn't.
>%
>%                             Harald
>%
>
>         Bingo. And what does the current, predominent implementation do
>         in this regard?

Does not understand that there is a question?

                Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no