Re: [idn] Adding "optional" characters in draft-ietf-idn-nameprep

[James Seng <James@Seng.cc>]

Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> Jonathan Rosenne pointed out that we might need another class of
> characters for processing. Hebrew vowels are optional characters that
> some people enter, although most don't. There are probably a few such
> characters in other written scripts as well. We have a few choices:

Just wanted to point out Arabic script also contain some diacritic which
should be ignore. However, as the diacritic is used to symbolised how
you should pronounce the word, the meaning of the word may varies
depending on diacritic. But yes, diacritic is should be ignore in the
normal language usage since the meaning is usually infered from context.
But no, children are taught these diacritic to help them but yes, they
slowly drop it when they grow older. Confused? *argghh* 

> a) We can ignore these characters on input (that is, toss them out of
> the input stream).
>
> b) We can prohibit the characters on input.
> 
> c) We can allow them in names. This would mean that people
> registering names would have to register them with and without the
> characters (possibly in many combinations).

I am more inclined for (a), ie we silently ignore them on input.
However, as I mention in the WG meeting, I like to point out what
codepoint we put on this list would be sensitive as you can shrew it for
other uses. (e.g. if we place '&' on the list, AT&T.COM will be
equivalent to ATT.COM)
 
> UI issues:
> (a) would be easiest for users because they don't have to remember
> whether or not to use the characters. (b) would cause users who enter
> them in names to get an error that says an illegal character was
> entered. (c) would also be easy for users, but only if name holders
> register all logical possibilities of the names.

(a) still sound like the best solution here.

> Complexity in nameprep:
> (a) adds another step and another table to the nameprep, although the
> table will be small. (b) will be easiest because we already have a
> table of prohibited characters. (c) adds no complexity.

Construction of this table is 'bad'. I hate to have to maintain yet
another list...And who is going to do that?

> Registration of names:
> (a) and (b) allows the registration of the fewest names, that is,
> without the optional characters. (c) would require that name owners
> register all names that include the optional characters.

I recommended that this should be place into the comparsion I-D.

-James Seng