[Latingp] Sharp S and Allocatable vs Blocked
Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
Mon Sep 9 06:59:08 UTC 2019
On 06.09.2019 20:44, Tan Tanaka, Dennis wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> Not sure which part are you disagreeing with: 1) main driver for analysis is technical; or 2) linguistic argument not relevant; or both?
sorry the misunderstanding. I should have better expressed what I
referred to. I meant the statement that 'the target market of sharp S
(Germany) has been conditioned (by their country code registry operator)
that domain names using sharp s and “ss” are different.'
That is not the case.
> Anyway, the key message I was trying to make is that the analysis on sharp S is on technical grounds. That the technical issue originated because of linguistics conventions getting into protocol, sure. But absent of the technical issues we would not be exploring this case, would we?
I think we nevertheless would have explored this case, but the
discussion would maybe have been much shorter and wouldn't have taken
| knipp | Knipp Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
Dipl.-Informatiker Fon: +49 231 9703-0
Fax: +49 231 9703-200
Dr. Michael Bauland SIP: Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
Software Development E-mail: Michael.Bauland at knipp.de
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 13728
Chief Executive Officers:
Dietmar Knipp, Elmar Knipp
More information about the Latingp