Karlsson Kent - keka wrote:
Let me note again that CIDNUC and such are unacceptable, sinceFor people who don't know a language's script, CIDNUC (UTF5, or %HH encoded UTF8) produces mild gibberish out of (regardless of how beautiful the script really is) perceived complete gibberish.
they are reencodings into ASCII that turn (for some people)
understandable names into complete gibberish, and given the QP
(and BASE64 for text) experience I have no optimism of having
Mild gibberish can be internationally recognised and typed -- i.e. anyone can get to the website's front page (and from there Accept-Language takes over). This works even from thin clients such as mobile phones.
But complete gibberish can't ever (because of human limitations) be understood and typed accurately (implies a security risk BTW).
Rich sites may purchase two host names - their true I18N one and an ASCII transliterated one. Poorer sites would probably quote (on business cards, etc) their true I18N domain and for those who can't type/etc that they may well quote their IPv6/4 address. :-(
Will IDN allow I18N hostnames to have ASCII transliterated equivalents
(with no site owner extra cost)(worry: increased DNS load)? Should
this universal typability be discussed under requirements?
regards,
Aaron Irvine
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron Irvine
mailto:airvine@corp.phone.com
-----------------------------------------------------