Re: [idn] SLC minutes

[tedd <tedd@sperling.com>]

Edmon et al:

I sent the following before, but it didn't appear in the idn. The
following is a repost:

>This is the same as my thinking about LGC (Latin/Greek/Cyrillic) mapping,
>that is
>
><ALPHA><a><A><alpha>.example
>
>will be matched as
>
><a'><a'><a'><a'>.example
>
>So, we can really fulfil the spirit of Nameprep that: "The user should not
>be limited to only entering exactly the characters that might have been
>used, but to instead be able to enter characters that unambiguously
>[represents] the characters in the [perceived] host name.
>
>Perhaps this issue (what I call, Character Equivalence Mapping) will be
>discussed in other wgs but I just want to clarify what I meant during the
>SLC-IDN meeting and that I think it is important for the usability of
>multilingual domain names when they are deployed.
>
>Edmon

Yes, capital Omega is mapped to lower case Omega, but why?

I can understand that "A" has to be mapped to "a" to stop multiple
registrations of the same name with different capitalizations. But
why extend that "solution" to other code points? Clearly, the two
glyphs (‡ v. w) are different enough to be noticed as being different
-- so, the rational for excluding one (i.e., Character Equivalence
Mapping) in favor of the other must have some grounds. But, what?

Furthermore, if one had to map one code point to another, then why
didn't it go the other way? In other words, why wasn't the capital
Omega kept and the lower case mapped to the upper case. After all,
the capital Omega (‡) looks considerably different than all other
glyphs -- where as the lower case Omega looks like a common to many
languages "w". In addition, I would bet that the upper case Omega has
better global recognition than its lower case brother. So, what's the
point of Character Equivalence Mapping in this case?

tedd

--
http://sperling.com