[Latingp] Correction: Discussion of the Armenian GP request
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Thu Oct 15 19:08:09 UTC 2015
Taking your interlinear comments in sequence, your first comment goes to
the work completed in 2010, which updates and significantly changed the
prior IETF work product, published in 2003. However, I should have
mentioned the prior "IDN Testbed" of 2000, memorialized by the
Corporation Board, as my intent was to suggest that work restricted to
domain names has been ongoing for some time, though obviously not as
long as internationalization and localization work, and the publication
of standards for character repertoires.
Your second comment goes to the scope of the Latin panel's work. Is it
limited to a single label, the initial label to the left of the
terminating dot character? I've no doubt that there exists a consumer of
the Latin panel's work product that has both (a) a scope of interest
restricted to the initial label to the left of the terminating dot
character, and (b) additional rules generally unknown to the members of
the Latin panel, not arising from the general properties of Latin
script. More generally, we can't know that an adjacent label can only
exist at one, but not both, terminators of a label, as that is not a
property of Latin script, nor a property of the sets of processing rules
we assume valid, where not contradicting, which are the encoding rules
of 2010. If we did "know that", then we would, of necessity, also "know
that" our work product is only true for one label in any sequence of
labels, even were all labels in a sequence are composed of characters
from the Latin script repertoire. I suggest it is better we do not know,
and assume any label is neither initial nor terminal, and where initial
and/or terminal rules exist, they are the responsibility of those who
make positional rules rather than organic script rules.
To your third comment I've not heard from the Integration Panel, nor do
I expect to.
I should point out that as Staff, you are free to direct the volunteer
contributors in any way you see fit, and I may lack the qualifications
necessary to assist the Corporation in this area.
On 10/12/15 1:29 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> [[ Finally following up after a long break. ]]
> > Thank you for the clarifications, on today's conference call and on
> the mailing
> > list.
> > We have the general question of what, in addition to the base
> character set
> > specified in rfc1034/1035, drawing on earlier rfcs,
> > is necessary for constructing labels, for users of latin script.
> > Our work product will be of the form of some rules for the formation of
> > identifiers, constrained by the limitations on labels arising from
> the IDNA work
> > of 2003 and 2010.
> Aren't we are supposed to only be looking at IDNA2008 (which was
> finished in 2010)? All the documents seem to list that version.
> > There may be context-specific rules, perhaps for labels which
> originate, or
> > terminate, a sequence of labels, e.g., those labels published as
> part of the
> > IANA root zone and are composed of characters a single script as
> defined in the
> > current version of UNICODE.
> The Generation Panels output is for labels in the root zone only, not
> for labels in the second level and below. Our output goes to the
> Integration Panel to put into the Root Zone LGR. All of the documents
> I've seen so far talk about the Root Zone LGR.
> > What ever those context-specific rules may be, ours is the general
> problem of
> > identifiers expressed in the latin script, used to associate
> resources at public
> > addresses by the protocol defined in rfc1034/1035 and their
> successors. If a
> > label is terminal, there may be terminal-specific rules.
> > My understanding is that our peers in the Armenian GP have informed
> us (via the
> > "similar scripts" question in our common boiler-plate initial
> document) that
> > there are one or more glyphs common to the Armenian script which are
> similar to
> > one or more glyphs common to the Latin script. In general this is
> probably not
> > "news", as whatever the final form of general rules we issue as our work
> > product, our rules are likely to "be aware" that homoglyphs exist, etc.
> Have we heard back from the Integration Panel on this?
> --Paul Hoffman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Latingp