[UA-discuss] IANA IDN Tables

Mark Svancarek marksv at microsoft.com
Tue Feb 27 17:46:46 UTC 2018

That's the way I am reading it. If different LGRs apply, then different tables and tags apply.

Which *still* doesn't answer why one would want to use a Katakana-specific LGR.

I've beaten this horse to death.. Thanks to everyone who helped me to better understand!


-----Original Message-----
From: UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Don Hollander
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:31 AM
To: 'Andrew Sullivan' <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>; ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] IANA IDN Tables

So, below the root level, the applicant needs to not only choose their preferred domain name, but also the expected language?


-----Original Message-----
From: UA-discuss [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2018 6:26 AM
To: ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] IANA IDN Tables

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 04:58:00PM +0000, Mark Svancarek wrote:
> So perhaps the intent is to allow user to select the LGR under which 
> their
submission will be approved?

I hesitate to say what someone else's intention is.  But the basic idea of having different LGRs for the same script but different language tags is to permit a given label to be evaluated according to the target use case, while still providing a mechanism to create the final LGR out of all the code points permitted.

Imagine a script called "Slobbovian", which has two communities of speakers "Upper Slobbovian" and "Lower Slobbovian".  80% of the Slobbovian code points are shared, but 10% are used only for one or the other languages.
Moreover, for every member in the 10% appropriate to Upper, there is a member of those other 10% appropriate to Lower.  (This is an artificial example, obviously.)  In this case, one would expect two LGRs for application purposes: the Upper and the Lower.  The Upper would have its respective 10% plus the 80% as "allocatable", and the other 10% as "blocked", with a 1:1 correspondence for variant generation between the first 10% and the second 10%.  The Lower would have a similar LGR, _mutatis mutandis_.
The overall LGR for the _zone_ permits all the Slobbovian-range code points, but has different dispositions depending on which language tag was used in the application for the domain.

I hope that makes a little bit of sense.  If not, I need to write a longer mail :)


> -----Original Message-----
> From: UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Andrew 
> Sullivan
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2018 11:18 AM
> To: ua-discuss at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] IANA IDN Tables
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 07:10:00PM +0000, Mark Svancarek wrote:
> > 
> > It still seems weird to me to have a superset table  (Japanese) as 
> > well
as subset tables (Hiragana, Katakana) for the same TLD.  What's the utility?
> > 
> When you're submitting an IDN, there is probably a selection of 
> language tags you can pick.  These probably align with those; at 
> least, that's the point of the distinction in the LGR approach we did 
> for the root.  (The effect is supposed to be the same anyway, due to 
> blocking, but I don't know whether Verisign is doing that too.)
> A

Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com

More information about the UA-discuss mailing list