[UA-discuss] interesting to note about emoji in mailbox name.

[Andre Schappo]

Ok. Letʼs consider a Korean mailbox name.

I best start with a brief explanation of Korean Hangul.

The individual letters of Korean are called Jamo eg ㅎ ㅏ ㄴ ㄱ ㅡ ㄹ or ㅂ ㅏ ㄴ ㅏ ㄴ ㅏ

Jamo are formed into squared syllable blocks eg 한글 (Hangeul) or 바나나 (banana)

I reason:

Universal Acceptance = Hangul Syllables U+AC00➔D7AF
Uncritical Acceptance = Hangul Syllables U+AC00➔D7AF + Hangul Jamo U+1100➔11FF + Hangul Jamo Extended-A U+A960➔A97F + Hangul Jamo Extended-B U+D7B0➔D7FF + Hangul Compatibility Jamo U+3130➔318F + ...

I most definitely am not an expert on Korean so those that are please check my reasoning

André Schappo

On 16 Apr 2019, at 11:35, Don Hollander <don.hollander at gmail.com<mailto:don.hollander at gmail.com>> wrote:

Andre

Can you provide an example of what one such would look like?

Don


From: UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Andre Schappo
Sent: Tuesday, 16 April 2019 8:54 PM
To: Asmus Freytag (c) <asmusf at ix.netcom.com<mailto:asmusf at ix.netcom.com>>
Cc: John Levine <john.levine at standcore.com<mailto:john.levine at standcore.com>>; ua-discuss at icann.org<mailto:ua-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] interesting to note about emoji in mailbox name.




On 15 Apr 2019, at 17:54, Asmus Freytag (c) <asmusf at ix.netcom.com<mailto:asmusf at ix.netcom.com>> wrote:

On 4/15/2019 9:46 AM, John Levine wrote:

In article <09cbecda-324d-eb4d-bd45-fb4e64c71a72 at ix.netcom.com><mailto:09cbecda-324d-eb4d-bd45-fb4e64c71a72 at ix.netcom.com> you write:

That's the real danger of understanding UA as "blind acceptance" vs.

universal support for well-behaved (if non-native) identifiers.

"Well-behaved" almost has to become more narrowly defined than the

"anything goes" or "any PVALID goes" from E-mail or domain name standards.

Quite right.  I wish I know where the bad idea came from that you're

supposed to accept every technically valid but illegible and

misleading IDN or e-mail address.  It's never been true with ASCII

addresses and it's even less true with IDNs and UTF-8 mailboxes.





How do we make sure that UA doesn't become synonymous with "uncritical acceptance"?
A./

I really like your phrase "Uncritical Acceptance".

In a previous email you wrote: "Those issues may require a discussion whether "Universal Acceptance" and "Uncritical Acceptance" are the same thing". (Note - I Title cased for better effect)

Seeing the two together in a sentence is extremely effective and to me effectively summarises the issues.

I consider defining good mailbox naming practices for the whole of Unicode would be a huge undertaking and there would be many overlaps and possibly contradictions with other standards.

So, instead, what of defining good mailbox naming practice for just one of the orthography categories? This could serve to illustrate both good practice (Universal Acceptance) and bad practice (Uncritical Acceptance).
André Schappo


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20190416/94574bf1/attachment.html>